Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26459172›Full record

SynthesisMicrobiome2015

Microbiota of the indoor environment: a meta-analysis.

Rachel I Adams, Ashley C Bateman, Holly M Bik, James F Meadow

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Microbiome, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

148 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Rachel I AdamsPlant & Microbial Biology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, 94720, CA, USA. adamsri@berkeley.edu.
Ashley C BatemanBiology and the Built Environment Center, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, 97403, OR, USA. abateman@uoregon.edu.
Holly M BikUC Davis Genome Center, University of California, Davis, Davis, 95616, CA, USA. holly.bik@gmail.com.
James F MeadowBiology and the Built Environment Center, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, 97403, OR, USA. jfmeadow@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs modern humans, we spend the majority of our time in indoor environments. Consequently, environmental exposure to microorganisms has important implications for human health, and a better understanding of the ecological drivers and processes that impact indoor microbial assemblages will be key for expanding our knowledge of the built environment. In the present investigation, we combined recent studies examining the microbiota of the built environment in order to identify unifying community patterns and the relative importance of indoor environmental factors. Ultimately, the present meta-analysis focused on studies of bacteria and archaea due to the limited number of high-throughput fungal studies from the indoor environment. We combined 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene datasets from 16 surveys of indoor environments conducted worldwide, additionally including 7 other studies representing putative environmental sources of microbial taxa (outdoor air, soil, and the human body).

resultsCombined analysis of subsets of studies that shared specific experimental protocols or indoor habitats revealed community patterns indicative of consistent source environments and environmental filtering. Additionally, we were able to identify several consistent sources for indoor microorganisms, particularly outdoor air and skin, mirroring what has been shown in individual studies. Technical variation across studies had a strong effect on comparisons of microbial community assemblages, with differences in experimental protocols limiting our ability to extensively explore the importance of, for example, sampling locality, building function and use, or environmental substrate in structuring indoor microbial communities.

conclusionsWe present a snapshot of an important scientific field in its early stages, where studies have tended to focus on heavy sampling in a few geographic areas. From the practical perspective, this endeavor reinforces the importance of negative "kit" controls in microbiome studies. From the perspective of understanding mechanistic processes in the built environment, this meta-analysis confirms that broad factors, such as geography and building type, structure indoor microbes. However, this exercise suggests that individual studies with common sampling techniques may be more appropriate to explore the relative importance of subtle indoor environmental factors on the indoor microbiome.

Indexed as

Air MicrobiologyAir Pollution, IndoorMicrobiotaBacteriaBiodiversityCluster AnalysisHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID26459172
PMCPMC4604073

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.