Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28401295›Full record

ReviewCurrent genetics2017

The metagenomics worldwide research.

Jose Antonio Garrido-Cardenas, Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Uneven global coverage of halophilic metagenomes limits comparative analyses of microbial adaptation to saline environments.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors.

Jose Antonio Garrido-CardenasDepartment of Biology and Geology, University of Almeria, 04120, Almeria, Spain. jcardena@ual.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2785-0027
Francisco Manzano-AgugliaroDepartment of Engineering, University of Almeria, 04120, Almeria, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0085-030X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metagenomics is the technique, or set of techniques, whose main objective is to determine the microbial population that can be found in a determined environment, studied in the context of its community. For this, it uses the techniques of massive sequencing, or next generation sequencing, due to the difficulties presented by traditional techniques when trying to transfer all the microorganisms present in a given environment to the laboratory. Metagenomics is a newly created technique, which was born at the beginning of the twenty-first century, and since then the interest of the world scientific community in fields as diverse as medicine, biotechnology, agriculture or genetics has not left to grow. In this article, the authors make a historical review of the metagenomics, analyze and evaluate the different massive sequencing platforms used for metagenomic assays, review the current literature on this subject and advance future problems with which researchers who decide to go deeper in this field could find. In this way, the prior knowledge of the researcher will facilitate the approach of his research.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsResearchEvolution, MolecularHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetagenomePhylogenyPublicationsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNAFunctional genomicMassive sequencingMetagenomicsPhylogeny

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.