Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26635741›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2015

Prokaryotes in Subsoil-Evidence for a Strong Spatial Separation of Different Phyla by Analysing Co-occurrence Networks.

Marie Uksa, Michael Schloter, David Endesfelder, Susanne Kublik, Marion Engel, Timo Kautz, Ulrich Köpke, Doreen Fischer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Marie UksaResearch Unit Environmental Genomics, Department of Environmental Science, Helmholtz Zentrum München Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Michael SchloterResearch Unit Environmental Genomics, Department of Environmental Science, Helmholtz Zentrum München Oberschleissheim, Germany.
David EndesfelderScientific Computing Research Unit, Institute of Computational Biology, Helmholtz Zentrum München Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Susanne KublikResearch Unit Environmental Genomics, Department of Environmental Science, Helmholtz Zentrum München Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Marion EngelScientific Computing Research Unit, Institute of Computational Biology, Helmholtz Zentrum München Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Timo KautzInstitute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn Bonn, Germany.
Ulrich KöpkeInstitute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn Bonn, Germany.
Doreen FischerResearch Unit Environmental Genomics, Department of Environmental Science, Helmholtz Zentrum München Oberschleissheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial communities in soil provide a wide range of ecosystem services. On the small scale, nutrient rich hotspots in soil developed from the activities of animals or plants are important drivers for the composition of microbial communities and their functional patterns. However, in subsoil, the spatial heterogeneity of microbes with differing lifestyles has been rarely considered so far. In this study, the phylogenetic composition of the bacterial and archaeal microbiome based on 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing was investigated in the soil compartments bulk soil, drilosphere, and rhizosphere in top- and in the subsoil of an agricultural field. With co-occurrence network analysis, the spatial separation of typically oligotrophic and copiotrophic microbes was assessed. Four bacterial clusters were identified and attributed to bulk topsoil, bulk subsoil, drilosphere, and rhizosphere. The bacterial phyla Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes, representing mostly copiotrophic bacteria, were affiliated mainly to the rhizosphere and drilosphere-both in topsoil and subsoil. Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, Planctomycetes, and Verrucomicrobia, bacterial phyla which harbor many oligotrophic bacteria, were the most abundant groups in bulk subsoil. The bacterial core microbiome in this soil was estimated to cover 7.6% of the bacterial sequencing reads including both oligotrophic and copiotrophic bacteria. In contrast the archaeal core microbiome includes 56% of the overall archaeal diversity. Thus, the spatial variability of nutrient quality and quantity strongly shapes the bacterial community composition and their interaction in subsoil, whereas archaea build a stable backbone of the soil prokaryotes due to their low variability in the different soil compartments.

Indexed as

bacterial diversityco-occurrencecore microbiomedrilosphererhizospheresubsoil

Identifiers

PMID26635741
PMCPMC4649028

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.