Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32714361›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2020

Plant Microbiomes: Do Different Preservation Approaches and Primer Sets Alter Our Capacity to Assess Microbial Diversity and Community Composition?

Zhiguang Qiu, Juntao Wang, Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo, Pankaj Trivedi, Eleonora Egidi, Yi-Min Chen, Haiyang Zhang, Brajesh K Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Zhiguang QiuHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Juntao WangHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Manuel Delgado-BaquerizoDepartamento de Sistemas Físicos, Químicos y Naturales, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain.
Pankaj TrivediMicrobiome Cluster and Department of Agricultural Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Eleonora EgidiHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Yi-Min ChenHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Haiyang ZhangHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Brajesh K SinghHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The microbial communities associated with plants (the plant microbiome) play critical roles in regulating plant health and productivity. Because of this, in recent years, there have been significant increase in studies targeting the plant microbiome. Amplicon sequencing is widely used to investigate the plant microbiome and to develop sustainable microbial agricultural tools. However, performing large microbiome surveys at the regional and global scales pose several logistic challenges. One of these challenges is related with the preservation of plant materials for sequencing aiming to maintain the integrity of the original diversity and community composition of the plant microbiome. Another significant challenge involves the existence of multiple primer sets used in amplicon sequencing that, especially for bacterial communities, hampers the comparability of datasets across studies. Here, we aimed to examine the effect of different preservation approaches (snap freezing, fresh and kept on ice, and air drying) on the bacterial and fungal diversity and community composition on plant leaves, stems and roots from seven plant species from contrasting functional groups (e.g. C3, C4, N-Fixers, etc.). Another major challenge comes when comparing plant to soil microbiomes, as different primers sets are often used for plant vs. soil microbiomes. Thus, we also investigated if widely used 16S rRNA primer set (779F/1193R) for plant microbiome studies provides comparable data to those often used for soil microbiomes (341F/805R) using 86 soil samples. We found that the community composition and diversity of bacteria or fungi were robust to contrasting preservation methods. The primer sets often used for plants provided similar results to those often used for soil studies suggesting that simultaneous studies on plant and soil microbiomes are possible. Our findings provide novel evidence that preservation approaches do not significantly impact plant microbiome data interpretation and primer differences do not impact the treatment effect, which has significant implication for future large-scale and global surveys of plant microbiomes.

Indexed as

amplicon sequencingplant microbiomepreservation methodssamplingsequencing primerssoil

Identifiers

PMID32714361
PMCPMC7351510

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.