Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33461660›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

Freshwater monitoring by nanopore sequencing.

Lara Urban, Andre Holzer, J Jotautas Baronas, Michael B Hall, Philipp Braeuninger-Weimer, Michael J Scherm, Daniel J Kunz, Surangi N Perera, Daniel E Martin-Herranz, Edward T Tipper and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

53 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Microbial Ecotoxicology-40 Years on.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Emerging technologies and current challenges in intratumoral microbiota research.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Air monitoring by nanopore sequencing.ISME communications · 2024
    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.

Lara Urban *European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5445-9314
Andre Holzer *Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2439-6364
J Jotautas BaronasDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4027-3965
Michael B HallEuropean Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3683-6208
Philipp Braeuninger-WeimerDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8677-1647
Michael J SchermDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3289-9159
Daniel J KunzWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3597-6591
Surangi N PereraDepartment of Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4827-9242
Daniel E Martin-HerranzEuropean Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2285-3317
Edward T TipperDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3540-3558
Susannah J SalterDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3898-8504
Maximilian R StammnitzDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1704-9199

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council OpenPlant Fund (BBSRC BB/L014130/1)Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust Graduate Student Fellowship (102453/Z/13/Z)Wellcome Trust Graduate Student Fellowship (203828/Z/16/A, 203828/Z/16/Z)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While traditional microbiological freshwater tests focus on the detection of specific bacterial indicator species, including pathogens, direct tracing of all aquatic DNA through metagenomics poses a profound alternative. Yet, in situ metagenomic water surveys face substantial challenges in cost and logistics. Here, we present a simple, fast, cost-effective and remotely accessible freshwater diagnostics workflow centred around the portable nanopore sequencing technology. Using defined compositions and spatiotemporal microbiota from surface water of an example river in Cambridge (UK), we provide optimised experimental and bioinformatics guidelines, including a benchmark with twelve taxonomic classification tools for nanopore sequences. We find that nanopore metagenomics can depict the hydrological core microbiome and fine temporal gradients in line with complementary physicochemical measurements. In a public health context, these data feature relevant sewage signals and pathogen maps at species level resolution. We anticipate that this framework will gather momentum for new environmental monitoring initiatives using portable devices.

Indexed as

Water MicrobiologyBacteriaBase SequenceCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyEnvironmental MonitoringFresh WaterGeographyMetagenomeMetagenomicsMicrobiotaNanopore SequencingRiversRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Homology, Nucleic AcidSpecies SpecificityRNA, Ribosomal, 16Sbacterial monitoringcomputational biologyecologyenvironmental metagenomicsfreshwater ecologyinfectious diseasemicrobiologynanopore sequencingportable dna analysis

Identifiers

PMID33461660
PMCPMC7815314

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.