Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26081497›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2015

The idiosyncrasy of spatial structure in bacterial competition.

Felix J H Hol, Peter Galajda, Rutger G Woolthuis, Cees Dekker, Juan E Keymer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Priority effects in microbiome assembly.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2022
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Bacterial Behavior in Confined Spaces.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bacterial Communities: Interactions to Scale.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016
    Review
  12. Review
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

5 authors.

Felix J H HolDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ, Delft, The Netherlands. f.j.h.hol@tudelft.nl.
Peter GalajdaDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ, Delft, The Netherlands. galajda.peter@brc.mta.hu.
Rutger G WoolthuisDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ, Delft, The Netherlands. rutger@woolthuis.nl.
Cees DekkerDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ, Delft, The Netherlands. C.Dekker@tudelft.nl.
Juan E KeymerDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ, Delft, The Netherlands. jkeymer@uc.cl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe spatial structure of a habitat can have a strong impact on community dynamics. Different experimental approaches exist to explore the effect of spatial structure on bacterial communities. To investigate the effect of 'space', a single implementation of spatial structure is often contrasted to bacterial community dynamics in well-mixed cultures. While such comparisons are useful, it is likely that the observed dynamics will be particular to the specific experimental implementation of spatial structure. In order to address this question, we track the community dynamics of a two-strain Escherichia coli community in various spatial habitats and relate the observed dynamics to the structure of a habitat.

resultsBy tracking the community dynamics of rpoS wild-type and mutant E. coli in radially expanding colonies on solid and semi-solid agar plates, we find that the mutant strain outcompetes the wild-type on semi-solid agar plates, whereas the two strains coexist on solid agar. We compare these results to previous studies in which the same two strains were shown to coexist in habitats spatially structured by microfabrication, while the mutant outcompeted the wild-type in well-mixed batch cultures. Together, these observations show that different implementations of space may result in qualitatively different community dynamics. Furthermore, we argue that the same competitive outcome (e.g. coexistence) may arise from distinct underlying dynamics in different experimental implementations of spatial structure.

conclusionsOur observations demonstrate that different experimental implementations of spatial structure may not only lead to quantitatively different communities (changes in the relative abundance of types) but can also lead to qualitatively different outcomes of long-term community dynamics (coexistence versus extinction and loss of biodiversity).

Indexed as

AgarAntibiosisBatch Cell Culture TechniquesColony Count, MicrobialCulture MediaEscherichia coliExtracellular SpaceSymbiosisAgarCulture Media

Identifiers

PMID26081497
PMCPMC4470050

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.