Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29018424›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2017

Sample Preservation, DNA or RNA Extraction and Data Analysis for High-Throughput Phytoplankton Community Sequencing.

Anita Mäki, Pauliina Salmi, Anu Mikkonen, Anke Kremp, Marja Tiirola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. From nets to networks: tools for deciphering phytoplankton metabolic interactions within communities and their global significance.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

5 authors.

Anita MäkiDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Pauliina SalmiDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Anu MikkonenDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Anke KrempMarine Research Centre, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
Marja TiirolaDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phytoplankton is the basis for aquatic food webs and mirrors the water quality. Conventionally, phytoplankton analysis has been done using time consuming and partly subjective microscopic observations, but next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies provide promising potential for rapid automated examination of environmental samples. Because many phytoplankton species have tough cell walls, methods for cell lysis and DNA or RNA isolation need to be efficient to allow unbiased nucleic acid retrieval. Here, we analyzed how two phytoplankton preservation methods, three commercial DNA extraction kits and their improvements, three RNA extraction methods, and two data analysis procedures affected the results of the NGS analysis. A mock community was pooled from phytoplankton species with variation in nucleus size and cell wall hardness. Although the study showed potential for studying Lugol-preserved sample collections, it demonstrated critical challenges in the DNA-based phytoplankton analysis in overall. The 18S rRNA gene sequencing output was highly affected by the variation in the rRNA gene copy numbers per cell, while sample preservation and nucleic acid extraction methods formed another source of variation. At the top, sequence-specific variation in the data quality introduced unexpected bioinformatics bias when the sliding-window method was used for the quality trimming of the Ion Torrent data. While DNA-based analyses did not correlate with biomasses or cell numbers of the mock community, rRNA-based analyses were less affected by different RNA extraction procedures and had better match with the biomasses, dry weight and carbon contents, and are therefore recommended for quantitative phytoplankton analyses.

Indexed as

cell lysisLugolnext generation sequencingoperational taxonomic unitsphytoplankton

Identifiers

PMID29018424
PMCPMC5622927

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.