ArticlePloS one2020
Patient propagules: Do soil archives preserve the legacy of fungal and prokaryotic communities?
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bedside inoculation accelerates detection and improves microbiological diagnosis efficiency compared to delayed inoculation.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Beyond the snapshot: identification of the timeless, enduring indicator microbiome informing soil fertility and crop production in alkaline soils.Environmental microbiome · 2022Article
- Article
- Environmental Difference and Spatial Distance Affect the Fidelity of Variation Source of Microbial Community Structure in Air-Dried Soils.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Storage of soil microbiome for application in sustainable agriculture: prospects and challenges.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soil archives are an important resource in agronomic and ecosystem sciences. If microbial communities could be reconstructed from archived soil DNA, as prehistoric plant communities are reconstructed via pollen data, soil archive resources would assume even greater value for reconstructing land-use history, forensic science, and biosphere modelling. Yet, the effects of long-term soil archival on the preservation of microbial DNA is still largely unknown. To address this, we assessed the capacity of high-throughput sequencing (Illumina MiSeq) of ITS (internal transcribed spacer) and prokaryotic 16S rRNA genes for reconstructing soil microbial communities across a 20 years time-series. We studied air-dried soil archives and fresh soil samples taken from Populus bioenergy and deciduous forest research plots at the Kellogg Biological Station. Habitat and archival time explained significant amounts of variation in soil microbial α- and β-diversity both in fungal and prokaryotic communities. We found that microbial richness, diversity, and abundance generally decreased with storage time, but varied between habitat and taxonomic groups. The high relative abundance of ectomycorrhizal species including Hebeloma and Cortinarius detected in older soil archives raises questions regarding traits such as long-term persistence and viability of ectomycorrhizal propagules in soils, with relevance to forest health and ecosystem succession. Talaromyces, Paecilomyces and Epicoccum spp. were detected in fresh and across 20-year-old archived soils and were also cultured from these soils demonstrating their long-term spore viability. In summary, we found that microbial DNA in air-dried soils archived over the past 20 years degraded with time, in a manner that differed between soil types and phylogenetic groups of microbes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.