ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2017
Functional Stability and Community Dynamics during Spring and Autumn Seasons Over 3 Years in Camargue Microbial Mats.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Bacterial Diversity and Functional Potential in Two Athalassohaline Lagoons in the Monegros Desert (NE Spain).Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Review
- Gut microbiota dynamics and functionality in Reticulitermes grassei after a 7-day dietary shift and ciprofloxacin treatment.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbial mats are complex biofilms in which the major element cycles are represented at a millimeter scale. In this study, community variability within microbial mats from the Camargue wetlands (Rhone Delta, southern France) were analyzed over 3 years during two different seasons (spring and autumn) and at different layers of the mat (0-2, 2-4, and 4-6 mm). To assess bacterial diversity in the mats, amplicons of the V1-V2 region of the 16S rRNA gene were sequenced. The community's functionality was characterized using two approaches: (i) inferred functionality through 16S rRNA amplicons genes according to PICRUSt, and (ii) a shotgun metagenomic analysis. Based on the reads distinguished, microbial communities were dominated by Bacteria (∼94%), followed by Archaea (∼4%) and Eukarya (∼1%). The major phyla of Bacteria were Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Spirochaetes, Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, and Cyanobacteria, which together represented 70-80% of the total population detected. The phylum Euryarchaeota represented ∼80% of the Archaea identified. These results showed that the total bacterial diversity from the Camargue microbial mats was not significantly affected by seasonal changes at the studied location; however, there were differences among layers, especially between the 0-2 mm layer and the other two layers. PICRUSt and shotgun metagenomic analyses revealed similar general biological processes in all samples analyzed, by season and depth, indicating that different layers were functionally stable, although some taxa changed during the spring and autumn seasons over the 3 years. Several gene families and pathways were tracked with the oxic-anoxic gradient of the layers. Genes directly involved in photosynthesis (KO, KEGG Orthology) were significantly more abundant in the top layer (0-2 mm) than in the lower layers (2-4 and 4-6 mm). In the anoxic layers, the presence of ferredoxins likely reflected the variation of redox reactions required for anaerobic respiration. Sulfatase genes had the highest relative abundance below 2 mm. Finally, chemotaxis signature genes peaked sharply at the oxic/photic and transitional oxic-anoxic boundary. This functional differentiation reflected the taxonomic diversity of the different layers of the mat.
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.