Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31921020›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2019

Impact of Sample Preservation and Manipulation on Insect Gut Microbiome Profiling. A Test Case With Fruit Flies (Diptera, Tephritidae).

Maarten De Cock, Massimiliano Virgilio, Peter Vandamme, Antonios Augustinos, Kostas Bourtzis, Anne Willems, Marc De Meyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Bacterial Symbionts inInsects · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. AdultMicroorganisms · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. New Insights on theMicroorganisms · 2021
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maarten De CockDepartment of Biology and Joint Experimental Molecular Unit, Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium.
Massimiliano VirgilioDepartment of Biology and Joint Experimental Molecular Unit, Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium.
Peter VandammeLaboratory of Microbiology, Faculty of Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Antonios AugustinosDepartment of Plant Protection, Institute of Industrial and Forage Crops, Hellenic Agricultural Organization - Demeter, Patras, Greece.
Kostas BourtzisInsect Pest Control Laboratory, Joint FAO/IAEA Programme of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Vienna, Austria.
Anne WillemsLaboratory of Microbiology, Faculty of Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Marc De MeyerDepartment of Biology and Joint Experimental Molecular Unit, Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium.
Royal Museum for Central Africa · BEGhent University · BEInternational Atomic Energy Agency · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing (HTS) techniques are of great value for the investigation of microbial communities, and have been extensively used to study the gut microbiome. While most studies focus on the human gut, many others have investigated insects. However, because of the rapid spread of HTS techniques, a lot of variation exists in the protocols for sample preparation. In the present study, we investigated the impact of two widely adopted sample-processing procedures preceding library preparation, i.e., preservation of insect tissue in 70% ethanol (EtOH) and sample dissection. We used the fruit fly

Indexed as

amplicon sequencingCeratitis capitatagut microbiomemethodologyTephritidae

Identifiers

PMID31921020
PMCPMC6923184
OpenAlexW2991055534

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.