Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26388969›Full record

ArticleStandards in genomic sciences2015

Metagenomic analysis of planktonic microbial consortia from a non-tidal urban-impacted segment of James River.

Bonnie L Brown, Rebecca V LePrell, Rima B Franklin, Maria C Rivera, Francine M Cabral, Hugh L Eaves, Vicki Gardiakos, Kevin P Keegan, Timothy L King

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Standards in genomic sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Metagenomic Profiling of Microbial Pathogens in the Little Bighorn River, Montana.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Bonnie L BrownDepartment of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1000 W Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23284 USA.
Rebecca V LePrellEnvironmental Epidemiology Division, Virginia Department of Health, 109 Governor Street, Richmond, VA 23219 USA.
Rima B FranklinDepartment of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1000 W Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23284 USA.
Maria C RiveraDepartment of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1000 W Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23284 USA.
Francine M CabralDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 East Marshall Street, Richmond, VA 23298 USA.
Hugh L EavesSchool of Life Sciences, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1000 W Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23284 USA.
Vicki GardiakosVirginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Soil and Water Conservation, 600 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219 USA.
Kevin P KeeganArgonne National Laboratory, Biosciences Division, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 USA.
Timothy L KingUS Geological Survey, Aquatic Ecology Branch, Leetown Science Center, 11649 Leetown Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowledge of the diversity and ecological function of the microbial consortia of James River in Virginia, USA, is essential to developing a more complete understanding of the ecology of this model river system. Metagenomic analysis of James River's planktonic microbial community was performed for the first time using an unamplified genomic library and a 16S rDNA amplicon library prepared and sequenced by Ion PGM and MiSeq, respectively. From the 0.46-Gb WGS library (GenBank:SRR1146621; MG-RAST:4532156.3), 4 × 10(6) reads revealed >3 × 10(6) genes, 240 families of prokaryotes, and 155 families of eukaryotes. From the 0.68-Gb 16S library (GenBank:SRR2124995; MG-RAST:4631271.3; EMB:2184), 4 × 10(6) reads revealed 259 families of eubacteria. Results of the WGS and 16S analyses were highly consistent and indicated that more than half of the bacterial sequences were Proteobacteria, predominantly Comamonadaceae. The most numerous genera in this group were Acidovorax (including iron oxidizers, nitrotolulene degraders, and plant pathogens), which accounted for 10 % of assigned bacterial reads. Polaromonas were another 6 % of all bacterial reads, with many assignments to groups capable of degrading polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Albidiferax (iron reducers) and Variovorax (biodegraders of a variety of natural biogenic compounds as well as anthropogenic contaminants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and endocrine disruptors) each accounted for an additional 3 % of bacterial reads. Comparison of these data to other publically-available aquatic metagenomes revealed that this stretch of James River is highly similar to the upper Mississippi River, and that these river systems are more similar to aquaculture and sludge ecosystems than they are to lakes or to a pristine section of the upper Amazon River. Taken together, these analyses exposed previously unknown aspects of microbial biodiversity, documented the ecological responses of microbes to urban effects, and revealed the noteworthy presence of 22 human-pathogenic bacterial genera (e.g., Enterobacteriaceae, pathogenic Pseudomonadaceae, and 'Vibrionales') and 6 pathogenic eukaryotic genera (e.g., Trypanosomatidae and Vahlkampfiidae). This information about pathogen diversity may be used to promote human epidemiological studies, enhance existing water quality monitoring efforts, and increase awareness of the possible health risks associated with recreational use of James River.

Indexed as

IndustryJames RiverPathogenTemperate urban river ecosystemVirginiaWater-borne disease

Identifiers

PMID26388969
PMCPMC4575436

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.