Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30266101›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2018

Genomes from uncultivated prokaryotes: a comparison of metagenome-assembled and single-amplified genomes.

Johannes Alneberg, Christofer M G Karlsson, Anna-Maria Divne, Claudia Bergin, Felix Homa, Markus V Lindh, Luisa W Hugerth, Thijs J G Ettema, Stefan Bertilsson, Anders F Andersson and 1 more

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 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 123 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Investigation of the Effect of TiOAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Strain-level dissection of complex rhizoplane and soil bacterial communities using single-cell genomics and metagenomics.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The oral-gut microbiome axis in health and disease.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Identification of closely related species inFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes AlnebergSchool of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, Department of Gene Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Christofer M G KarlssonCentre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems, EEMiS, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
Anna-Maria DivneDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, SciLifeLab, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Claudia BerginDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, SciLifeLab, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Felix HomaDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, SciLifeLab, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Markus V LindhCentre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems, EEMiS, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
Luisa W HugerthSchool of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, Department of Gene Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Thijs J G EttemaDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, SciLifeLab, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Stefan BertilssonDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Limnology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Anders F AnderssonSchool of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, Department of Gene Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. anders.andersson@scilifelab.se.
Jarone PinhassiCentre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems, EEMiS, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden. jarone.pinhassi@lnu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-6405-1347
Uppsala University · SEScience for Life Laboratory · SELinnaeus University · SELund University · SE

Funding

European Research Council 310039
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProkaryotes dominate the biosphere and regulate biogeochemical processes essential to all life. Yet, our knowledge about their biology is for the most part limited to the minority that has been successfully cultured. Molecular techniques now allow for obtaining genome sequences of uncultivated prokaryotic taxa, facilitating in-depth analyses that may ultimately improve our understanding of these key organisms.

resultsWe compared results from two culture-independent strategies for recovering bacterial genomes: single-amplified genomes and metagenome-assembled genomes. Single-amplified genomes were obtained from samples collected at an offshore station in the Baltic Sea Proper and compared to previously obtained metagenome-assembled genomes from a time series at the same station. Among 16 single-amplified genomes analyzed, seven were found to match metagenome-assembled genomes, affiliated with a diverse set of taxa. Notably, genome pairs between the two approaches were nearly identical (average 99.51% sequence identity; range 98.77-99.84%) across overlapping regions (30-80% of each genome). Within matching pairs, the single-amplified genomes were consistently smaller and less complete, whereas the genetic functional profiles were maintained. For the metagenome-assembled genomes, only on average 3.6% of the bases were estimated to be missing from the genomes due to wrongly binned contigs.

conclusionsThe strong agreement between the single-amplified and metagenome-assembled genomes emphasizes that both methods generate accurate genome information from uncultivated bacteria. Importantly, this implies that the research questions and the available resources are allowed to determine the selection of genomics approach for microbiome studies.

Indexed as

Nucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesBacteriaGenome, BacterialHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMetagenomeMicrobiotaOceans and SeasRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence AlignmentSwedenWhole Genome SequencingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBinningMetagenome-assembled genomesMetagenomicsSingle-amplified genomesSingle-cell genomics

Identifiers

PMID30266101
PMCPMC6162917
OpenAlexW2768748254

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.