Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27571759›Full record

ArticleNature microbiology2016

An assessment of US microbiome research.

Elizabeth Stulberg, Deborah Fravel, Lita M Proctor, David M Murray, Jonathan LoTempio, Linda Chrisey, Jay Garland, Kelly Goodwin, Joseph Graber, M Camille Harris and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Strengthening Integrative Microbiome Research Through Regional Leadership.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 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

14 authors.

Elizabeth StulbergOffice of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20504, USA.
Deborah FravelUnited States Department of Agriculture, Plant Health, Crop Production and Protection, Agricultural Research Service, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA.
Lita M ProctorDepartment of Health and Human Services, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
David M MurrayOffice of Disease Prevention, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20852, USA.
Jonathan LoTempioDepartment of Health and Human Services, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Linda ChriseyDepartment of Defense, Office of Naval Research, 875 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia 22205-1995, USA.
Jay GarlandUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research &Development, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA.
Kelly GoodwinOcean Chemistry and Ecosystems Division, Atlantic Oceanographic &Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 4301 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149, USA.
Joseph GraberUS Department of Energy, Office of Biological &Environmental Research, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, USA.
M Camille HarrisDepartment of the Interior, Ecosystems Mission Area, United States Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, USA.
Scott JacksonBiosystems and Biomaterials Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA.
Michael MishkindPhysiological and Structural Systems Cluster, Integrative Organismal Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA.
D Marshall PorterfieldNASA Life and Physical Sciences, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546, USA.
Angela RecordsOffice of Agriculture, Research and Policy, Bureau for Food Security, US Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20523, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-enabled technologies have supported a dramatic increase in our ability to study microbial communities in environments and hosts. Taking stock of previously funded microbiome research can help to identify common themes, under-represented areas and research priorities to consider moving forward. To assess the status of US microbiome research, a team of government scientists conducted an analysis of federally funded microbiome research. Microbiomes were defined as host-, ecosystem- or habitat-associated communities of microorganisms, and microbiome research was defined as those studies that emphasize community-level analyses using 'omics technologies. Single pathogen, single strain and culture-based studies were not included, except symbiosis studies that served as models for more complex communities. Fourteen governmental organizations participated in the data call. The analysis examined three broad research themes, eight environments and eight microbial categories. Human microbiome research was larger than any other environment studied, and the basic biology research theme accounted for half of the total research activities. Computational biology and bioinformatics, reference databases and biorepositories, standardized protocols and high-throughput tools were commonly identified needs. Longitudinal and functional studies and interdisciplinary research were also identified as needs. This study has implications for the funding of future microbiome research, not only in the United States but beyond.

Indexed as

BiotaBiomedical ResearchCapital FinancingComputational BiologyHumansMetagenomicsMicrobiological TechniquesMicrobiologyUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.