ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014
Tools for T-RFLP data analysis using Excel.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phosphate fertilization affects rhizosphere microbiome of maize and sorghum genotypes.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2022Article
- The Status of Soil Microbiome as Affected by the Application of Phosphorus Biofertilizer: Fertilizer Enriched with Beneficial Bacterial Strains.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Developing BIOTEL: A Semi-Automated Spreadsheet for Estimating Telomere Length and Biological Age.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Resistance and resilience of root fungal communities to water limitation in a temperate agroecosystem.Ecology and evolution · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTerminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis is a DNA-fingerprinting method that can be used for comparisons of the microbial community composition in a large number of samples. There is no consensus on how T-RFLP data should be treated and analyzed before comparisons between samples are made, and several different approaches have been proposed in the literature. The analysis of T-RFLP data can be cumbersome and time-consuming, and for large datasets manual data analysis is not feasible. The currently available tools for automated T-RFLP analysis, although valuable, offer little flexibility, and few, if any, options regarding what methods to use. To enable comparisons and combinations of different data treatment methods an analysis template and an extensive collection of macros for T-RFLP data analysis using Microsoft Excel were developed.
resultsThe Tools for T-RFLP data analysis template provides procedures for the analysis of large T-RFLP datasets including application of a noise baseline threshold and setting of the analysis range, normalization and alignment of replicate profiles, generation of consensus profiles, normalization and alignment of consensus profiles and final analysis of the samples including calculation of association coefficients and diversity index. The procedures are designed so that in all analysis steps, from the initial preparation of the data to the final comparison of the samples, there are various different options available. The parameters regarding analysis range, noise baseline, T-RF alignment and generation of consensus profiles are all given by the user and several different methods are available for normalization of the T-RF profiles. In each step, the user can also choose to base the calculations on either peak height data or peak area data.
conclusionsThe Tools for T-RFLP data analysis template enables an objective and flexible analysis of large T-RFLP datasets in a widely used spreadsheet application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.