Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27242673›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2016

Sample Processing Impacts the Viability and Cultivability of the Sponge Microbiome.

Ana I S Esteves, Nimra Amer, Mary Nguyen, Torsten Thomas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Identification and Antimicrobial Potential of Marine Sponges (International journal of microbiology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Bacteria Isolated From the Antarctic SpongeFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Cultivation of Bacteria FromFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ana I S EstevesCentre for Marine Bio-Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Nimra AmerCentre for Marine Bio-Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Mary NguyenCentre for Marine Bio-Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Torsten ThomasCentre for Marine Bio-Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales Kensington, NSW, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sponges host complex microbial communities of recognized ecological and biotechnological importance. Extensive cultivation efforts have been made to isolate sponge bacteria, but most still elude cultivation. To identify the bottlenecks of sponge bacterial cultivation, we combined high-throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing with a variety of cultivation media and incubation conditions. We aimed to determine the extent to which sample processing and cultivation conditions can impact bacterial viability and recovery in culture. We isolated 325 sponge bacteria from six specimens of Cymbastela concentrica and three specimens of Scopalina sp. These isolates were distributed over 37 different genera and 47 operational taxonomic units (defined at 97% 16S rRNA gene sequence identity). The cultivable bacterial community was highly specific to its sponge host and different media compositions yielded distinct microbial isolates. Around 97% of the isolates could be detected in the original sponge and represented a large but highly variable proportion (0.5-92% total abundance, depending on sponge species) of viable bacteria obtained after sample processing, as determined by propidium monoazide selective DNA modification of compromised cells. Our results show that the most abundant viable bacteria are also the most predominant groups found in cultivation, reflecting, to some extent, the relative abundances of the viable bacterial community, rather than the overall community estimated by direct molecular approaches. Cultivation is therefore shaped not only by the growth conditions provided, but also by the different cell viabilities of the bacteria that constitute the cultivation inoculum. These observations highlight the need to perform experiments to assess each method of sample processing for its accurate representation of the actual in situ bacterial community and its yield of viable cells.

Indexed as

bacterial viabilitycultivation biasmicrobial cultivationmicrobial diversitysponge microbiome

Identifiers

PMID27242673
PMCPMC4876369
OpenAlexW2340735502

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.