ArticlePeerJ2017
Short reads from honey bee (
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endosymbionts that threaten commercially raised and wild bumble bees (Journal of pollination ecology · 2023Article
- The toxins of vertically transmittedFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Epidemiology of a major honey bee pathogen, deformed wing virus: potential worldwide replacement of genotype A by genotype B.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2022Article
- Shotgun sequencing of honey DNA can describe honey bee derived environmental signatures and the honey bee hologenome complexity.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Effects of Tropilaelaps mercedesae on midgut bacterial diversity of Apis mellifera.Experimental & applied acarology · 2019Article
- Is Anopheles gambiae a Natural Host ofmBio · 2019Article
- Social environment affects the transcriptomic response to bacteria in ant queens.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- A bioinformatics approach to identifyingPeerJ · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High throughput (or 'next generation') sequencing has transformed most areas of biological research and is now a standard method that underpins empirical study of organismal biology, and (through comparison of genomes), reveals patterns of evolution. For projects focused on animals, these sequencing methods do not discriminate between the primary target of sequencing (the animal genome) and 'contaminating' material, such as associated microbes. A common first step is to filter out these contaminants to allow better assembly of the animal genome or transcriptome. Here, we aimed to assess if these 'contaminations' provide information with regard to biologically important microorganisms associated with the individual. To achieve this, we examined whether the short read data from
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.