Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29230200›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2017

From Genes to Ecosystems in Microbiology: Modeling Approaches and the Importance of Individuality.

Jan-Ulrich Kreft, Caroline M Plugge, Clara Prats, Johan H J Leveau, Weiwen Zhang, Ferdi L Hellweger

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Microbiome modeling: a beginner's guide.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Metabolic modelling approaches for describing and engineering microbial communities.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Toward Engineering Biosystems With Emergent Collective Functions.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Jan-Ulrich KreftCentre for Computational Biology, Institute for Microbiology and Infection, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Caroline M PluggeLaboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Clara PratsDepartment of Physics, School of Agricultural Engineering of Barcelona, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya-BarcelonaTech, Castelldefels, Spain.
Johan H J LeveauDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Weiwen ZhangLaboratory of Synthetic Microbiology, Key Laboratory of Systems Bioengineering (Ministry of Education), School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Ferdi L HellwegerCivil and Environmental Engineering Department, Marine and Environmental Sciences Department, Bioengineering Department, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States.
Northeastern University · USTianjin University · CNUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya · ESUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of California, Davis · USWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/K000683/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Models are important tools in microbial ecology. They can be used to advance understanding by helping to interpret observations and test hypotheses, and to predict the effects of ecosystem management actions or a different climate. Over the past decades, biological knowledge and ecosystem observations have advanced to the molecular and in particular gene level. However, microbial ecology models have changed less and a current challenge is to make them utilize the knowledge and observations at the genetic level. We review published models that explicitly consider genes and make predictions at the population or ecosystem level. The models can be grouped into three general approaches, i.e., metabolic flux, gene-centric and agent-based. We describe and contrast these approaches by applying them to a hypothetical ecosystem and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. An important distinguishing feature is how variation between individual cells (individuality) is handled. In microbial ecosystems, individual heterogeneity is generated by a number of mechanisms including stochastic interactions of molecules (e.g., gene expression), stochastic and deterministic cell division asymmetry, small-scale environmental heterogeneity, and differential transport in a heterogeneous environment. This heterogeneity can then be amplified and transferred to other cell properties by several mechanisms, including nutrient uptake, metabolism and growth, cell cycle asynchronicity and the effects of age and damage. For example, stochastic gene expression may lead to heterogeneity in nutrient uptake enzyme levels, which in turn results in heterogeneity in intracellular nutrient levels. Individuality can have important ecological consequences, including division of labor, bet hedging, aging and sub-optimality. Understanding the importance of individuality and the mechanism(s) underlying it for the specific microbial system and question investigated is essential for selecting the optimal modeling strategy.

Indexed as

agent-based modelinggene-centric modelingheterogeneityindividualitymetabolic flux modelingmicrobial ecologysingle cell

Identifiers

PMID29230200
PMCPMC5711835
OpenAlexW2770456970

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.