ArticleScientific reports2020
Analysis of molecular diversity within single cyanobacterial colonies from environmental samples.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Attached or floating macroscopic cyanobacteria can be found in shallow waters and can be easily hand-collected, but their identification is often challenging due to their high morphological variability. In addition, many members of environmental samples lose their morphological adaptations under controlled conditions, making the integration of analyses of field populations and derived isolated cultures necessary in order to evaluate phenotypic plasticity for identification purposes. Therefore, in this study, twenty-nine macroscopic field samples were analyzed by Illumina sequencing and parallel optical microscopy. Some colonies showed the typical morphological characteristics of Rivularia biasolettiana, and others showed those of Rivularia haematites. However, other Rivularia-like colonies showed ambiguous morphologies, and some of them showed the phenotypic features of the new genus Cyanomargarita, which is virtually indistinguishable from Rivularia in the field. In all of the colonies, phylotype composition was highly heterogeneous, with abundances varying depending on the analyzed sample. Some colonies were dominated (97-99%) by a single phylotype, while in others, the percentage of the dominant phylotype decreased to approximately 50-60%. Surprisingly, the same dominant phylotype was found in R. biasolettiana and R. haematites colonies. The relationships between environmental and/or biological factors and morphological variability in these colonies are discussed.
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.