Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33664723›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2021

Comparison of Two 16S rRNA Primers (V3-V4 and V4-V5) for Studies of Arctic Microbial Communities.

Eduard Fadeev, Magda G Cardozo-Mino, Josephine Z Rapp, Christina Bienhold, Ian Salter, Verena Salman-Carvalho, Massimiliano Molari, Halina E Tegetmeyer, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Antje Boetius

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
24.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Oral Administration ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Eduard FadeevAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.
Magda G Cardozo-MinoAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.
Josephine Z RappSchool of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Christina BienholdAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.
Ian SalterAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.
Verena Salman-CarvalhoDepartment of Microbiology, Morrill Science Center IVN, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, United States.
Massimiliano MolariMax Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, Bremen, Germany.
Halina E TegetmeyerMax Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, Bremen, Germany.
Pier Luigi ButtigiegAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.
Antje BoetiusAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.
Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung · DEMax Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology · DEBielefeld University · DEHavstovan · FOUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial communities of the Arctic Ocean are poorly characterized in comparison to other aquatic environments as to their horizontal, vertical, and temporal turnover. Yet, recent studies showed that the Arctic marine ecosystem harbors unique microbial community members that are adapted to harsh environmental conditions, such as near-freezing temperatures and extreme seasonality. The gene for the small ribosomal subunit (16S rRNA) is commonly used to study the taxonomic composition of microbial communities in their natural environment. Several primer sets for this marker gene have been extensively tested across various sample sets, but these typically originated from low-latitude environments. An explicit evaluation of primer-set performances in representing the microbial communities of the Arctic Ocean is currently lacking. To select a suitable primer set for studying microbiomes of various Arctic marine habitats (sea ice, surface water, marine snow, deep ocean basin, and deep-sea sediment), we have conducted a performance comparison between two widely used primer sets, targeting different hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene (V3-V4 and V4-V5). We observed that both primer sets were highly similar in representing the total microbial community composition down to genus rank, which was also confirmed independently by subgroup-specific catalyzed reporter deposition-fluorescence

Indexed as

amplicon sequencingArctic Oceanmethod comparisonmicrobial communitiesmolecular observatoryuniversal primers

Identifiers

PMID33664723
PMCPMC7920977
OpenAlexW3132006795

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.