Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31053828›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2019

Predictive genomic traits for bacterial growth in culture versus actual growth in soil.

Junhui Li, Rebecca L Mau, Paul Dijkstra, Benjamin J Koch, Egbert Schwartz, Xiao-Jun Allen Liu, Ember M Morrissey, Steven J Blazewicz, Jennifer Pett-Ridge, Bram W Stone and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Codon bias, nucleotide selection, and genome size predict in situ bacterial growth rate and transcription in rewetted soil.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

12 authors.

Junhui LiCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Rebecca L MauCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Paul DijkstraCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Benjamin J KochCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Egbert SchwartzCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Xiao-Jun Allen LiuCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0488-8591
Ember M MorrisseyDepartment of Biology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.
Steven J BlazewiczPhysical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 94550, USA.
Jennifer Pett-RidgePhysical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 94550, USA.
Bram W StoneCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Michaela HayerCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Bruce A HungateCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA. Bruce.Hungate@nau.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7337-1887

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Relationships between microbial genes and performance are often evaluated in the laboratory in pure cultures, with little validation in nature. Here, we show that genomic traits related to laboratory measurements of maximum growth potential failed to predict the growth rates of bacteria in unamended soil, but successfully predicted growth responses to resource pulses: growth increased with 16S rRNA gene copy number and declined with genome size after substrate addition to soils, responses that were repeated in four different ecosystems. Genome size best predicted growth rate in response to addition of glucose alone; adding ammonium with glucose weakened the relationship, and the relationship was absent in nutrient-replete pure cultures, consistent with the idea that reduced genome size is a mechanism of nutrient conservation. Our findings demonstrate that genomic traits of soil bacteria can map to their ecological performance in nature, but the mapping is poor under native soil conditions, where genomic traits related to stress tolerance may prove more predictive. These results remind that phenotype depends on environmental context, underscoring the importance of verifying proposed schemes of trait-based strategies through direct measurement of performance in nature, an important and currently missing foundation for translating microbial processes from genes to ecosystems.

Indexed as

Soil MicrobiologyBacteriaColony Count, MicrobialCulture MediaDNA, BacterialEcosystemGenome SizeGenomicsPhenotypeRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoilCulture MediaDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoil

Identifiers

PMID31053828
PMCPMC6776108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.