Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30619224›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2018

Identification of Microbial Dark Matter in Antarctic Environments.

Jeff S Bowman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 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. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

1 author.

Jeff S BowmanScripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous studies have applied molecular techniques to understand the diversity, evolution, and ecological function of Antarctic bacteria and archaea. One common technique is sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, which produces a nearly quantitative profile of community membership. However, the utility of this and similar approaches is limited by what is known about the evolution, physiology, and ecology of surveyed taxa. When representative genomes are available in public databases some of this information can be gleaned from genomic studies, and automated pipelines exist to carry out this task. Here the paprica metabolic inference pipeline was used to assess how well Antarctic microbial communities are represented by the available completed genomes. The NCBI's Sequence Read Archive (SRA) was searched for Antarctic datasets that used one of the Illumina platforms to sequence the 16S rRNA gene. These data were quality controlled and denoised to identify unique reads, then analyzed with paprica to determine the degree of overlap with the closest phylogenetic neighbor with a completely sequenced genome. While some unique reads had perfect mapping to 16S rRNA genes from completed genomes, the mean percent overlap for all mapped reads was 86.6%. When samples were grouped by environment, some environments appeared more or less well represented by the available genomes. For the domain Bacteria, seawater was particularly poorly represented with a mean overlap of 80.2%, while for the domain Archaea glacial ice was particularly poorly represented with an overlap of only 48.0% for a single sample. These findings suggest that a considerable effort is needed to improve the representation of Antarctic microbes in genome sequence databases.

Indexed as

16S rRNAAntarcticacryoconiteglacierpermafrostsea icesedimentsnow

Identifiers

PMID30619224
PMCPMC6305705

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.