Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28574490›Full record

ReviewThe ISME journal2017

Capturing the genetic makeup of the active microbiome in situ.

Esther Singer, Michael Wagner, Tanja Woyke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The ISME journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Active antibiotic resistome in soils unraveled by single-cell isotope probing and targeted metagenomics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Esther SingerUS Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Michael WagnerUniversity of Vienna, Department of Microbial Ecology and Ecosystem Science, Division of Microbial Ecology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Tanja WoykeUS Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.

Funding

European Research Council 294343
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More than any other technology, nucleic acid sequencing has enabled microbial ecology studies to be complemented with the data volumes necessary to capture the extent of microbial diversity and dynamics in a wide range of environments. In order to truly understand and predict environmental processes, however, the distinction between active, inactive and dead microbial cells is critical. Also, experimental designs need to be sensitive toward varying population complexity and activity, and temporal as well as spatial scales of process rates. There are a number of approaches, including single-cell techniques, which were designed to study in situ microbial activity and that have been successively coupled to nucleic acid sequencing. The exciting new discoveries regarding in situ microbial activity provide evidence that future microbial ecology studies will indispensably rely on techniques that specifically capture members of the microbiome active in the environment. Herein, we review those currently used activity-based approaches that can be directly linked to shotgun nucleic acid sequencing, evaluate their relevance to ecology studies, and discuss future directions.

Indexed as

Environmental MicrobiologyGenetic TechniquesMicrobiotaBacteriaEcosystem

Identifiers

PMID28574490
PMCPMC5563950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.