Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33574436›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Insufficient sampling constrains our characterization of plant microbiomes.

Lorinda S Bullington, Ylva Lekberg, Beau G Larkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

3 authors.

Lorinda S BullingtonMPG Ranch, Missoula, MT, 59801, USA. lbullington@mpgranch.com.
Ylva LekbergMPG Ranch, Missoula, MT, 59801, USA.
Beau G LarkinMPG Ranch, Missoula, MT, 59801, USA.

Funding

Genomics Resources Core (GRC)P30GM103324 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO · PI SETTLES, MATTHEW · 2013 to 2017
$5.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P30 GM103324
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants host diverse microbial communities, but there is little consensus on how we sample these communities, and this has unknown consequences. Using root and leaf tissue from showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), we compared two common sampling strategies: (1) homogenizing after subsampling (30 mg), and (2) homogenizing bulk tissue before subsampling (30 mg). We targeted bacteria, arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi and non-AM fungi in roots, and foliar fungal endophytes (FFE) in leaves. We further extracted DNA from all of the leaf tissue collected to determine the extent of undersampling of FFE, and sampled FFE twice across the season using strategy one to assess temporal dynamics. All microbial groups except AM fungi differed in composition between the two sampling strategies. Community overlap increased when rare taxa were removed, but FFE and bacterial communities still differed between strategies, with largely non-overlapping communities within individual plants. Increasing the extraction mass 10 × increased FFE richness ~ 10 ×, confirming the severe undersampling indicated in the sampling comparisons. Still, seasonal patterns in FFEs were apparent, suggesting that strong drivers are identified despite severe undersampling. Our findings highlight that current sampling practices poorly characterize many microbial groups, and increased sampling intensity is necessary for increase reproducibility and to identify subtler patterns in microbial distributions.

Indexed as

Soil MicrobiologyMicrobiotaMycorrhizaePlant LeavesPlant RootsPlantsSymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID33574436
PMCPMC7878899

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.