Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33584595›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2020

Multi-omics Comparative Analysis of

Tan Liu, Zhiyong Huang, Xi Gui, Wei Xiang, Yubo Jin, Jun Chen, Jing Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Screening and ARTP mutagenesis-based breeding of high-cellulase-producing strains.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026
    Article
  2. Probiotic Potential ofVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Genomic Insights and Synthetic Biology Applications of Marine ActinomyceteInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Enhanced Heat Resistance inMicroorganisms · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Rapid Screening of High-Yield Gellan Gum Mutants ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tan LiuCollege of Ocean and Earth Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Zhiyong HuangTianjin Institute of Industrial Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Tianjin, China.
Xi GuiCollege of Ocean and Earth Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Wei XiangCollege of Ocean and Earth Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Yubo JinCollege of Ocean and Earth Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Jun ChenCollege of Ocean and Earth Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Jing ZhaoCollege of Ocean and Earth Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Xiamen University · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sponges, the most primitive multicellular animals, contain a large number of unique microbial communities. Sponge-associated microorganisms, particularly actinomyces, have the potential to produce diverse active natural products. However, a large number of silent secondary metabolic gene clusters have failed to be revived under laboratory culture conditions. In this study, iterative atmospheric room-temperature plasma. (ARTP) mutagenesis coupled with multi-omics conjoint analysis was adopted to activate the inactive wild

Indexed as

antibacterial activityARTP mutagenesisawaken cryptic gene clustersmetabolome comparative analysistranscriptome comparative analysis

Identifiers

PMID33584595
PMCPMC7876522
OpenAlexW3128799956

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.