ArticleMethodsX2015
Study of a two species microbial community by an inferential comparative genomic analysis tool: Spatial Analytical Microbial Imaging.
Article in MethodsX, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most molecular fingerprinting techniques, including denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) [1], comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) [2], real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) [3], destroy community structure and/or cellular integrity, therefore lost the info. of the spatial locus and the in situ genomic copy number of the cells. An alternative technique, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) doesn't require sample disintegration but needs to develop specific markers and doesn't provide info. related to genomic copy number. Here, a microbial analysis tool, Spatial Analytical Microbial Imaging (SAMI), is described. An application was performed with a mixture of Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 and E. coli K-12 MG1655. The intrinsic property of their genome, reflected by the average fluorescence intensity (AFI), distinguished them in 3D. And their growth rates were inferred by comparing the total genomic fluorescence binding area (GFA) with that of the pure culture standards. A 93% of accuracy in differentiating the species was achieved. •SAMI does not require sample disintegration and preserves the community spatial structure.•It measures the 3D locus of cells within the mixture and may differentiate them according to the property of their genome.•It allows assessment of the growth rate of the cells within the mixture by comparing their genomic copy number with that of the pure culture standards.
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.