Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29609653›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2018

The active microbial community more accurately reflects the anaerobic digestion process: 16S rRNA (gene) sequencing as a predictive tool.

Jo De Vrieze, Ameet J Pinto, William T Sloan, Umer Zeeshan Ijaz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Selective survival of anaerobic digester microbes afterWater science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Rhizosphere microbiomes of field-grownFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Ecology of food waste chain-elongating microbiome.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jo De VriezeCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Ameet J PintoNortheastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
William T SloanInfrastructure and Environment Research Division, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Rankine Building, Oakfield Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8LT, UK.
Umer Zeeshan IjazInfrastructure and Environment Research Division, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Rankine Building, Oakfield Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8LT, UK. Umer.Ijaz@glasgow.ac.uk.
University of Glasgow · GBGhent University · BENortheastern University · US

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/M016811/1Natural Environment Research Council NE/L011956/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmplicon sequencing methods targeting the 16S rRNA gene have been used extensively to investigate microbial community composition and dynamics in anaerobic digestion. These methods successfully characterize amplicons but do not distinguish micro-organisms that are actually responsible for the process. In this research, the archaeal and bacterial community of 48 full-scale anaerobic digestion plants were evaluated on DNA (total community) and RNA (active community) level via 16S rRNA (gene) amplicon sequencing.

resultsA significantly higher diversity on DNA compared with the RNA level was observed for archaea, but not for bacteria. Beta diversity analysis showed a significant difference in community composition between the DNA and RNA of both bacteria and archaea. This related with 25.5 and 42.3% of total OTUs for bacteria and archaea, respectively, that showed a significant difference in their DNA and RNA profiles. Similar operational parameters affected the bacterial and archaeal community, yet the differentiating effect between DNA and RNA was much stronger for archaea. Co-occurrence networks and functional prediction profiling confirmed the clear differentiation between DNA and RNA profiles.

conclusionsIn conclusion, a clear difference in active (RNA) and total (DNA) community profiles was observed, implying the need for a combined approach to estimate community stability in anaerobic digestion.

Indexed as

AnaerobiosisMicrobiotaArchaeaBacteriaBiodiversityMetagenomicsPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNARNA, Ribosomal, 16SBiogasIllumina sequencingMethaneMethanogenesis

Identifiers

PMID29609653
PMCPMC5879801
OpenAlexW2768287989

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.