Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33042049›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2020

Repetitive Sampling and Control Threshold Improve 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing Results From Produced Waters Associated With Hydraulically Fractured Shale.

Jenna L Shelton, Elliott P Barnhart, Leslie Ruppert, Aaron M Jubb, Madalyn S Blondes, Christina A DeVera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Jenna L SheltonEastern Energy Resources Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Elliott P BarnhartWyoming-Montana Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Helena, MT, United States.
Leslie RuppertEastern Energy Resources Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, United States.
Aaron M JubbEastern Energy Resources Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, United States.
Madalyn S BlondesEastern Energy Resources Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, United States.
Christina A DeVeraEastern Energy Resources Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sequencing microbial DNA from deep subsurface environments is complicated by a number of issues ranging from contamination to non-reproducible results. Many samples obtained from these environments - which are of great interest due to the potential to stimulate microbial methane generation - contain low biomass. Therefore, samples from these environments are difficult to study as sequencing results can be easily impacted by contamination. In this case, the low amount of sample biomass may be effectively swamped by the contaminating DNA and generate misleading results. Additionally, performing field work in these environments can be difficult, as researchers generally have limited access to and time on site. Therefore, optimizing a sampling plan to produce the best results while collecting the greatest number of samples over a short period of time is ideal. This study aimed to recommend an adequate sampling plan for field researchers obtaining microbial biomass for 16S rRNA gene sequencing, applicable specifically to low biomass oil and gas-producing environments. Forty-nine different samples were collected by filtering specific volumes of produced water from a hydraulically fractured well producing from the Niobrara Shale. Water was collected in two different sampling events 24 h apart. Four to five samples were collected from 11 specific volumes. These samples along with eight different blanks were submitted for analysis. DNA was extracted from each sample, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and 16S rRNA Illumina MiSeq gene sequencing were performed to determine relative concentrations of biomass and microbial community composition, respectively. The qPCR results varied across sampled volumes, while no discernible trend correlated contamination to volume of water filtered. This suggests that collecting a larger volume of sample may not result in larger biomass concentrations or better representation of a sampled environment. Researchers could prioritize collecting many low volume samples over few high-volume samples. Our results suggest that there also may be variability in the concentration of microbial communities present in produced waters over short (i.e., hours) time scales, which warrants further investigation. Submission of multiple blanks is also vital to determining how contamination or low biomass effects may influence a sample set collected from an unknown environment.

Indexed as

16S/18S ribosomal RNA gene analysisblankshydraulic fracturinglow biomass samplesproduced water

Identifiers

PMID33042049
PMCPMC7518088

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.