Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26020967›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Survey of Microbial Diversity in Flood Areas during Thailand 2011 Flood Crisis Using High-Throughput Tagged Amplicon Pyrosequencing.

Wuttichai Mhuantong, Sarunyou Wongwilaiwalin, Thanaporn Laothanachareon, Lily Eurwilaichitr, Sithichoke Tangphatsornruang, Benjaporn Boonchayaanant, Tawan Limpiyakorn, Kobchai Pattaragulwanit, Thantip Punmatharith, John McEvoy and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Wuttichai MhuantongEnzyme Technology Laboratory, National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 113 Thailand Science Park, Phahonyothin Road, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand.
Sarunyou WongwilaiwalinEnzyme Technology Laboratory, National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 113 Thailand Science Park, Phahonyothin Road, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand.
Thanaporn LaothanachareonEnzyme Technology Laboratory, National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 113 Thailand Science Park, Phahonyothin Road, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand.
Lily EurwilaichitrEnzyme Technology Laboratory, National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 113 Thailand Science Park, Phahonyothin Road, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand.
Sithichoke TangphatsornruangGenome Institute, National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Thailand Science Park, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand.
Benjaporn BoonchayaanantDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Phayatai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand; Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Chulalongkorn University, Phayatai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Tawan LimpiyakornDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Phayatai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand; Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Chulalongkorn University, Phayatai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Kobchai PattaragulwanitDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Phayatai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Thantip PunmatharithCenter of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Chulalongkorn University, Phayatai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
John McEvoyDepartment of Veterinary and Microbiological Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, United States of America.
Eakalak KhanDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, United States of America.
Manaskorn RachakornkijDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Phayatai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand; Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Chulalongkorn University, Phayatai, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Verawat ChampredaEnzyme Technology Laboratory, National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 113 Thailand Science Park, Phahonyothin Road, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand.
National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology · THCenter of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management · THChulalongkorn University · THNorth Dakota State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Thailand flood crisis in 2011 was one of the largest recorded floods in modern history, causing enormous damage to the economy and ecological habitats of the country. In this study, bacterial and fungal diversity in sediments and waters collected from ten flood areas in Bangkok and its suburbs, covering residential and agricultural areas, were analyzed using high-throughput 454 pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA gene and internal transcribed spacer sequences. Analysis of microbial community showed differences in taxa distribution in water and sediment with variations in the diversity of saprophytic microbes and sulfate/nitrate reducers among sampling locations, suggesting differences in microbial activity in the habitats. Overall, Proteobacteria represented a major bacterial group in waters, while this group co-existed with Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria in sediments. Anaeromyxobacter, Steroidobacter, and Geobacter were the dominant bacterial genera in sediments, while Sulfuricurvum, Thiovirga, and Hydrogenophaga predominated in waters. For fungi in sediments, Ascomycota, Glomeromycota, and Basidiomycota, particularly in genera Philipsia, Rozella, and Acaulospora, were most frequently detected. Chytridiomycota and Ascomycota were the major fungal phyla, and Rhizophlyctis and Mortierella were the most frequently detected fungal genera in water. Diversity of sulfate-reducing bacteria, related to odor problems, was further investigated using analysis of the dsrB gene which indicated the presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria of families Desulfobacteraceae, Desulfobulbaceae, Syntrobacteraceae, and Desulfoarculaceae in the flood sediments. The work provides an insight into the diversity and function of microbes related to biological processes in flood areas.

Indexed as

Genes, BacterialGenes, FungalWater MicrobiologyBacteriaBiodiversityFloodsFungiGeologic SedimentsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMicrobial ConsortiaPhylogenyRainRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSulfur-Reducing BacteriaThailandRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID26020967
PMCPMC4447364
OpenAlexW361334482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.