Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33522965›Full record

ReviewMicrobiome2021

Considerations for mosquito microbiome research from the Mosquito Microbiome Consortium.

Nsa Dada, Natapong Jupatanakul, Guillaume Minard, Sarah M Short, Jewelna Akorli, Luis Martinez Villegas

Abstract readReviewVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Microbiota variation inMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Recovery of metagenomic data from theWellcome open research · 2023
    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.

Nsa DadaFaculty of Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway. nsa.dada@nmbu.no.ORCID 0000-0002-5276-2328
Natapong JupatanakulProtein-Ligand Engineering and Molecular Biology Research Team, National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Khlong Neung, Thailand.
Guillaume MinardUniv Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Ecologie Microbienne, F-69622, Villeurbanne, France.
Sarah M ShortDepartment of Entomology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Jewelna AkorliDepartment of Parasitology, Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
Luis Martinez Villegas, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past decade, there has been increasing interest in mosquito microbiome research, leading to large amounts of data on different mosquito species, with various underlying physiological characteristics, and from diverse geographical locations. However, guidelines and standardized methods for conducting mosquito microbiome research are lacking. To streamline methods in mosquito microbiome research and optimize data quality, reproducibility, and comparability, as well as facilitate data curation in a centralized location, we are establishing the Mosquito Microbiome Consortium, a collaborative initiative for the advancement of mosquito microbiome research. Our overall goal is to collectively work on unraveling the role of the mosquito microbiome in mosquito biology, while critically evaluating its potential for mosquito-borne disease control. This perspective serves to introduce the consortium and invite broader participation. It highlights the issues we view as most pressing to the community and proposes guidelines for conducting mosquito microbiome research. We focus on four broad areas in this piece: (1) sampling/experimental design for field, semi-field, or laboratory studies; (2) metadata collection; (3) sample processing, sequencing, and use of appropriate controls; and (4) data handling and analysis. We finally summarize current challenges and highlight future directions in mosquito microbiome research. We hope that this piece will spark discussions around this area of disease vector biology, as well as encourage careful considerations in the design and implementation of mosquito microbiome research. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsMicrobiotaAnimalsCulicidaeReproducibility of ResultsResearchComparabilityData qualityMetabarcodingMetagenomicsMetatranscriptomicsMicrobial ecologyMicrobiome data curationMosquito microbiomeRecommendations for mosquito microbiome researchReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID33522965
PMCPMC7849159

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.