ArticleScientific reports2017
Field sampling marine plankton for biodiscovery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microalgae from Cold Environments and Their Possible Biotechnological Applications.Marine drugs · 2023Review
- Biosynthetic Gene Clusters from Swine Gut Microbiome.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Phytoplankton of the Curonian Lagoon as a New Interesting Source for Bioactive Natural Products. Special Impact on Cyanobacterial Metabolites.Biomolecules · 2021Article
- Adding Zooplankton to the OSMAC Toolkit: Effect of Grazing Stress on the Metabolic Profile and Bioactivity of a Diatom.Marine drugs · 2021Article
- Biomimetics - Nature's roadmap to insights and solutions for burden of lifestyle diseases.Journal of internal medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microalgae and plankton can be a rich source of bioactivity. However, induction of secondary metabolite production in lab conditions can be difficult. One simple way of bypassing this issue is to collect biomass in the field and screen for bioactivity. Therefore, bulk net samples from three areas along the coast of northern Norway and Spitsbergen were collected, extracted and fractionated. Biomass samples from a strain of a mass-cultivated diatom Porosira glacialis were used as a reference for comparison to field samples. Screening for bioactivity was performed with 13 assays within four therapeutic areas: antibacterial, anticancer, antidiabetes and antioxidation. We analysed the metabolic profiles of the samples using high resolution - mass spectroscopy (HR-MS). Principal component analysis showed a marked difference in metabolite profiles between the field samples and the photobioreactor culture; furthermore, the number of active fractions and extent of bioactivity was different in the field compared to the photobioreactor samples. We found varying levels of bioactivity in all samples, indicating that complex marine field samples could be used to investigate bioactivities from otherwise inaccessible sources. Furthermore, we hypothesize that metabolic pathways that would otherwise been silent under controlled growth in monocultures, might have been activated in the field samples.
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.