Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30065092›Full record

ReviewmBio2018

Drivers of Microbiome Biodiversity: A Review of General Rules, Feces, and Ignorance.

Aspen T Reese, Robert R Dunn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in mBio, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 171 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
171citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

171 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Phenological Changes in the Fecal Microbiota ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Aspen T ReeseSociety of Fellows, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts areese@fas.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9004-9470
Robert R DunnDepartment of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The alpha diversity of ecologic communities is affected by many biotic and abiotic drivers and, in turn, affects ecosystem functioning. Yet, patterns of alpha diversity in host-associated microbial communities (microbiomes) are poorly studied and the appropriateness of general theory is untested. Expanding diversity theory to include microbiomes is essential as diversity is a frequently cited metric of their status. Here, we review and newly analyze reports of alpha diversity for animal gut microbiomes. We demonstrate that both diet and body size affect diversity in the gut but that gut physiology (fermenter versus simple) is the most important driver. We also assess the advantages of various diversity metrics. The importance of diversity in microbiomes is often assumed but has not been tested outright. Therefore, we close by discussing how to integrate microbiomes into the field of biodiversity-ecosystem functioning to more clearly understand when and why a host supports diverse microbial communities.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsDietFecesGastrointestinal Tractdiversitygutmicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID30065092
PMCPMC6069118

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.