ArticlePeerJ2021
Dumpster diving for diatom plastid 16S rRNA genes.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High throughput sequencing is improving the efficiency of monitoring diatoms, which inhabit and support aquatic ecosystems across the globe. In this study, we explored the potential of a standard V4 515F-806RB primer pair in recovering diatom plastid 16S rRNA sequences. We used PhytoREF to classify the 16S reads from our freshwater biofilm field sampling from three stream segments across two streams in south-eastern Australia and retrieved diatom community data from other, publicly deposited, Australian 16S amplicon datasets. When these diatom operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were traced using the default RDPII and NCBI databases, 68% were characterized as uncultured cyanobacteria. We analysed the 16S rRNA sequences from 72 stream biofilm samples, separated the chloroplast OTUs, and classified them using the PhytoREF database. After filtering the reads attributed to Bacillariophyta (relative abundance >1%), 71 diatom OTUs comprising more than 90% of the diatom reads in each stream biofilm sample were identified. Beta-diversity analyses demonstrated significantly different diatom assemblages and discrimination among river segments. To further test the approach, the diatom OTUs from our biofilm sampling were used as reference sequences to identify diatom reads from other Australian 16S rRNA datasets in the NCBI-SRA database. Across the three selected public datasets, 67 of our 71 diatom OTUs were detected in other Australian ecosystems. Our results show that diatom plastid 16S rRNA genes are readily amplified with existing 515F-806RB primer sets. Therefore, the volume of existing 16S rRNA amplicon datasets initially generated for microbial community profiling can also be used to detect, characterize, and map diatom distribution to inform phylogeny and ecological health assessments, and can be extended into a range of ecological and industrial applications. To our knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to classify freshwater samples using this approach and the first application of PhytoREF in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.