Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28199330›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Comparison of bacterial communities from lava cave microbial mats to overlying surface soils from Lava Beds National Monument, USA.

Kathleen H Lavoie, Ara S Winter, Kaitlyn J H Read, Evan M Hughes, Michael N Spilde, Diana E Northup

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Draft genome sequence of a member of a putatively novelMicrobiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors.

Kathleen H LavoieBiology, State University of New York, College at Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, NY, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8787-8235
Ara S WinterBiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States of America.
Kaitlyn J H ReadBiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States of America.
Evan M HughesBiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States of America.
Michael N SpildeInstitute of Meteoritics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States of America.
Diana E NorthupBiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Subsurface habitats harbor novel diversity that has received little attention until recently. Accessible subsurface habitats include lava caves around the world that often support extensive microbial mats on ceilings and walls in a range of colors. Little is known about lava cave microbial diversity and how these subsurface mats differ from microbial communities in overlying surface soils. To investigate these differences, we analyzed bacterial 16S rDNA from 454 pyrosequencing from three colors of microbial mats (tan, white, and yellow) from seven lava caves in Lava Beds National Monument, CA, USA, and compared them with surface soil overlying each cave. The same phyla were represented in both surface soils and cave microbial mats, but the overlap in shared OTUs (operational taxonomic unit) was only 11.2%. Number of entrances per cave and temperature contributed to observed differences in diversity. In terms of species richness, diversity by mat color differed, but not significantly. Actinobacteria dominated in all cave samples, with 39% from caves and 21% from surface soils. Proteobacteria made up 30% of phyla from caves and 36% from surface soil. Other major phyla in caves were Nitrospirae (7%) followed by minor phyla (7%), compared to surface soils with Bacteroidetes (8%) and minor phyla (8%). Many of the most abundant sequences could not be identified to genus, indicating a high degree of novelty. Surface soil samples had more OTUs and greater diversity indices than cave samples. Although surface soil microbes immigrate into underlying caves, the environment selects for microbes able to live in the cave habitats, resulting in very different cave microbial communities. This study is the first comprehensive comparison of bacterial communities in lava caves with the overlying soil community.

Indexed as

Soil MicrobiologyBacteriaCavesDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalMicrobial ConsortiaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SUnited StatesDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID28199330
PMCPMC5310854

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.