Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34282284›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2022

The rates of global bacterial and archaeal dispersal.

Stilianos Louca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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. Article
  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

1 author.

Stilianos LoucaDepartment of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA. louca.research@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9216-5619

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phylogenetic resolution at which microorganisms display geographic endemism, the rates at which they disperse at global scales, and the role of humans on global microbial dispersal are largely unknown. Answering these questions is necessary for interpreting microbial biogeography, ecology, and macroevolution and for predicting the spread of emerging pathogenic strains. To resolve these questions, I analyzed the geographic and evolutionary relationships between 36,795 bacterial and archaeal ("prokaryotic") genomes from ∼7000 locations around the world. I find clear signs of continental-scale endemism, including strong correlations between phylogenetic divergence and geographic distance. However, the phylogenetic scale at which endemism generally occurs is extremely small, and most "species" (defined by an average nucleotide identity ≥ 95%) and even closely related strains (average nucleotide identity ≥ 99.9%) are globally distributed. Human-associated lineages display faster dispersal rates than other terrestrial lineages; the average net distance between any two human-associated cell lineages diverging 50 years ago is roughly 580 km. These results suggest that many previously reported global-scale microbial biogeographical patterns are likely the result of recent or current environmental filtering rather than geographic endemism. For human-associated lineages, estimated transition rates between Europe and North America are particularly high, and much higher than for non-human associated terrestrial lineages, highlighting the role that human movement plays in global microbial dispersal. Dispersal was slowest for hot spring- and terrestrial subsurface-associated lineages, indicating that these environments may act as "isolated islands" of microbial evolution.

Indexed as

ArchaeaEcologyBacteriaNorth AmericaPhylogenyPhylogeography

Identifiers

PMID34282284
PMCPMC8692594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.