Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34187887›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021

Mass-immigration determines the assembly of activated sludge microbial communities.

Giulia Dottorini, Thomas Yssing Michaelsen, Sergey Kucheryavskiy, Kasper Skytte Andersen, Jannie Munk Kristensen, Miriam Peces, Dorottya Sarolta Wagner, Marta Nierychlo, Per Halkjær Nielsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. How to quantify immigration from community abundance data using the neutral community model.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Giulia DottoriniDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Biotechnology, Center for Microbial Communities, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark.
Thomas Yssing MichaelsenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Biotechnology, Center for Microbial Communities, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark.
Sergey KucheryavskiyDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Chemical Engineering, Aalborg University, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3145-7244
Kasper Skytte AndersenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Biotechnology, Center for Microbial Communities, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark.
Jannie Munk KristensenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Biotechnology, Center for Microbial Communities, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7471-7934
Miriam PecesDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Biotechnology, Center for Microbial Communities, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2522-7490
Dorottya Sarolta WagnerDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Biotechnology, Center for Microbial Communities, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark.
Marta NierychloDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Biotechnology, Center for Microbial Communities, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark.
Per Halkjær NielsenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Section of Biotechnology, Center for Microbial Communities, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark; phn@bio.aau.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-6402-1877

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assembly of bacterial communities in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is affected by immigration via wastewater streams, but the impact and extent of bacterial immigrants are still unknown. Here, we quantify the effect of immigration at the species level in 11 Danish full-scale activated sludge (AS) plants. All plants have different source communities but have very similar process design, defining the same overall environmental growth conditions. The AS community composition in each plant was strongly reflected by the corresponding influent wastewater (IWW) microbial composition. Most species in AS across the plants were detected and quantified in the corresponding IWW, allowing us to identify their fate in the AS: growing, disappearing, or surviving. Most of the abundant species in IWW disappeared in AS, so their presence in the AS biomass was only due to continuous mass-immigration. In AS, most of the abundant growing species were present in the IWW at very low abundances. We predicted the AS species abundances from their abundance in IWW by using a partial least square regression model. Some species in AS were predicted by their own abundance in IWW, while others by multiple species abundances. Detailed analyses of functional guilds revealed different prediction patterns for different species. We show, in contrast to the present understanding, that the AS microbial communities were strongly controlled by the IWW source community and could be quantitatively predicted by taking into account immigration. This highlights a need to revise the way we understand, design, and manage the microbial communities in WWTPs.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaBiodiversityBiomassModels, TheoreticalPrincipal Component AnalysisSewageSpecies SpecificityWastewaterSewageWastewateractivated sludgecommunity assemblyimmigration

Identifiers

PMID34187887
PMCPMC8271747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.