Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30289448›Full record

ArticleFEMS microbiology ecology2018

Prokaryotic communities of Indo-Pacific giant barrel sponges are more strongly influenced by geography than host phylogeny.

T Swierts, D F R Cleary, N J de Voogd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FEMS microbiology ecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors.

T SwiertsMarine Biodiversity, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, PO Box 9517, 2300 RA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
D F R ClearyDepartamento de Biologia CESAM, Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar, Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.
N J de VoogdMarine Biodiversity, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, PO Box 9517, 2300 RA, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sponges harbor complex communities of microorganisms that carry out essential roles for the functioning and survival of their hosts. In some cases, genetically related sponges from different geographic regions share microbes, while in other cases microbial communities are more similar in unrelated sponges collected from the same location. To better understand how geography and host phylogeny cause variation in the prokaryotic community of sponges, we compared the prokaryotic community of 44 giant barrel sponges (Xestospongia spp.). These sponges belonged to six reproductively isolated genetic groups from eight areas throughout the Indo-Pacific region. Using Illumina sequencing, we obtained 440 000 sequences of the 16S rRNA gene V3V4 variable region that were assigned to 3795 operational taxonomic units (OTUs). The prokaryotic community of giant barrel sponges was characterized by 71 core OTUs (i.e. OTUs present in each specimen) that represented 57.5% of the total number of sequences. The relative abundance of these core OTUs varied significantly among samples, and this variation was predominantly related to the geographic origin of the sample. These results show that in giant barrel sponges, the variation in the prokaryotic community is primarily associated with geography as opposed to phylogenetic relatedness.

Indexed as

BiodiversityReproductive IsolationAnimalsArchaeaBacteriaGeographyMicrobiotaPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SXestospongiaRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID30289448
PMCPMC6196991

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.