Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27602021›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2016

Biotic Interactions in Microbial Communities as Modulators of Biogeochemical Processes: Methanotrophy as a Model System.

Adrian Ho, Roey Angel, Annelies J Veraart, Anne Daebeler, Zhongjun Jia, Sang Yoon Kim, Frederiek-Maarten Kerckhof, Nico Boon, Paul L E Bodelier

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.7field-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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. iMeta · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Adrian HoDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) Wageningen, Netherlands.
Roey AngelDepartment of Microbiology and Ecosystem Science, Division of Microbial Ecology, Research Network Chemistry meets Microbiology, University of Vienna Vienna, Austria.
Annelies J VeraartDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) Wageningen, Netherlands.
Anne DaebelerDepartment of Microbiology and Ecosystem Science, Division of Microbial Ecology, Research Network Chemistry meets Microbiology, University of Vienna Vienna, Austria.
Zhongjun JiaState Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences Nanjing, China.
Sang Yoon KimDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) Wageningen, Netherlands.
Frederiek-Maarten KerckhofCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium.
Nico BoonCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium.
Paul L E BodelierDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) Wageningen, Netherlands.
Netherlands Institute of Ecology · NLGhent University · BEUniversity of Vienna · ATInstitute of Soil Science · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial interaction is an integral component of microbial ecology studies, yet the role, extent, and relevance of microbial interaction in community functioning remains unclear, particularly in the context of global biogeochemical cycles. While many studies have shed light on the physico-chemical cues affecting specific processes, (micro)biotic controls and interactions potentially steering microbial communities leading to altered functioning are less known. Yet, recent accumulating evidence suggests that the concerted actions of a community can be significantly different from the combined effects of individual microorganisms, giving rise to emergent properties. Here, we exemplify the importance of microbial interaction for ecosystem processes by analysis of a reasonably well-understood microbial guild, namely, aerobic methane-oxidizing bacteria (MOB). We reviewed the literature which provided compelling evidence for the relevance of microbial interaction in modulating methane oxidation. Support for microbial associations within methane-fed communities is sought by a re-analysis of literature data derived from stable isotope probing studies of various complex environmental settings. Putative positive interactions between active MOB and other microbes were assessed by a correlation network-based analysis with datasets covering diverse environments where closely interacting members of a consortium can potentially alter the methane oxidation activity. Although, methanotrophy is used as a model system, the fundamentals of our postulations may be applicable to other microbial guilds mediating other biogeochemical processes.

Indexed as

ecosystem functioningmethane oxidationmethanotrophymicrobial interactionmicrobial network

Identifiers

PMID27602021
PMCPMC4993757
OpenAlexW2507763887

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.