ArticleMolecular ecology2015
Getting specific: making taxonomic and ecological sense of large sequencing data sets.
Article in Molecular ecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Substrates of Peltigera Lichens as a Potential Source of Cyanobionts.Microbial ecology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eukaryotic microbes comprise a diverse collection of phototrophic and heterotrophic creatures known to play fundamental roles in ecological processes. Some can be identified by light microscopy, generally the largest and with conspicuous shapes, while the smallest can be counted by epifluorescence microscopy or flow cytometry but remain largely unidentified. Microbial diversity studies greatly advanced with the analysis of phylogenetic markers sequenced from natural assemblages. Molecular surveys began in 1990 targeting marine bacterioplankton (Giovannoni et al. ) and first approached microbial eukaryotes in three studies published in 2001 (Díez et al. ; López-García et al. ; Moon-van der Staay et al. ). These seminal studies, based on cloning and Sanger sequencing the complete 18S rDNA, were critical for obtaining broad pictures of microbial diversity in contrasted habitats and for describing novel lineages by robust phylogenies, but were limited by the number of sequences obtained. So, inventories of species richness in a given sample and community comparisons through environmental gradients were very incomplete. These limitations have been overcome with the advent of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) methods, initially 454-pyrosequencing, today Illumina and soon others to come. In this issue of Molecular Ecology, Egge et al. () show a nice example of the use of HTS to study the biodiversity and seasonal succession of a particularly important group of marine microbial eukaryotes, the haptophytes. Temporal changes were analysed first at the community level, then at the clade level, and finally at the lowest rank comparable to species. Interesting and useful ecological insights were obtained at each taxonomic scale. Haptophyte diversity differed along seasons in a systematic manner, with some species showing seasonal preferences and others being always present. Many of these species had no correspondence with known species, pointing out the high level of novelty in microbial assemblages, only accessible by molecular tools. Moreover, the number of species detected was limited, agreeing with a putative scenario of constrained evolutionary diversification in free-living small eukaryotes. This study illustrates the potential of HTS to address ecological relevant questions in an accessible way by processing large data sets that, nonetheless, need to be treated with a fair understanding of their limitations.
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.