Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32694124›Full record

ArticlemSystems2020

Measurement Error and Resolution in Quantitative Stable Isotope Probing: Implications for Experimental Design.

Ella T Sieradzki, Benjamin J Koch, Alex Greenlon, Rohan Sachdeva, Rex R Malmstrom, Rebecca L Mau, Steven J Blazewicz, Mary K Firestone, Kirsten S Hofmockel, Egbert Schwartz and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mSystems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Improved Mobilome Delineation in Fragmented Genomes.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ella T SieradzkiUniversity of California Berkeley, Environmental Science and Policy Management, Berkeley, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7174-3010
Benjamin J KochCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.
Alex GreenlonUniversity of California Berkeley, Environmental Science and Policy Management, Berkeley, California, USA.
Rohan SachdevaUniversity of California Berkeley, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Berkeley, California, USA.
Rex R MalmstromDepartment of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Berkeley, California, USA.
Rebecca L MauCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.
Steven J BlazewiczPhysical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA.
Mary K FirestoneUniversity of California Berkeley, Environmental Science and Policy Management, Berkeley, California, USA.
Kirsten S HofmockelPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA.
Egbert SchwartzCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.
Bruce A HungateCenter for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA Bruce.Hungate@nau.edu pettridge2@llnl.gov.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7337-1887
Jennifer Pett-RidgePhysical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA Bruce.Hungate@nau.edu pettridge2@llnl.gov.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4439-2398
Northern Arizona University · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USLawrence Livermore National Laboratory · USJoint Genome Institute · USPacific Northwest National Laboratory · USPlanetary Science Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative stable isotope probing (qSIP) estimates isotope tracer incorporation into DNA of individual microbes and can link microbial biodiversity and biogeochemistry in complex communities. As with any quantitative estimation technique, qSIP involves measurement error, and a fuller understanding of error, precision, and statistical power benefits qSIP experimental design and data interpretation. We used several qSIP data sets-from soil and seawater microbiomes-to evaluate how variance in isotope incorporation estimates depends on organism abundance and resolution of the density fractionation scheme. We assessed statistical power for replicated qSIP studies, plus sensitivity and specificity for unreplicated designs. As a taxon's abundance increases, the variance of its weighted mean density declines. Nine fractions appear to be a reasonable trade-off between cost and precision for most qSIP applications. Increasing the number of density fractions beyond that reduces variance, although the magnitude of this benefit declines with additional fractions. Our analysis suggests that, if a taxon has an isotope enrichment of 10 atom% excess, there is a 60% chance that this will be detected as significantly different from zero (with alpha 0.1). With five replicates, isotope enrichment of 5 atom% could be detected with power (0.6) and alpha (0.1). Finally, we illustrate the importance of internal standards, which can help to calibrate per sample conversions of %GC to mean weighted density. These results should benefit researchers designing future SIP experiments and provide a useful reference for metagenomic SIP applications where both financial and computational limitations constrain experimental scope.

Indexed as

environmental microbiologyexperimental designmetagenomicsmicrobial communitiesmicrobial ecologyqSIPstable isotope probingstatistical power

Identifiers

PMID32694124
PMCPMC7566279
OpenAlexW3044042531

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.