Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404486›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2021

The allometry of cellular DNA and ribosomal gene content among microbes and its use for the assessment of microbiome community structure.

Luis Gonzalez-de-Salceda, Ferran Garcia-Pichel

Open access · goldAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luis Gonzalez-de-SalcedaCenter for Fundamental and Applied Microbiomics and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA.
Ferran Garcia-PichelCenter for Fundamental and Applied Microbiomics and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA. ferran@asu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1383-1981
Arizona State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe determination of taxon-specific composition of microbiomes by combining high-throughput sequencing of ribosomal genes with phyloinformatic analyses has become routine in microbiology and allied sciences. Systematic biases to this approach based on the demonstrable variability of ribosomal operon copy number per genome were recognized early. The more recent realization that polyploidy is probably the norm, rather than the exception, among microbes from all domains of life, points to an even larger source bias.

resultsWe found that the number of 16S or 18S RNA genes per cell, a combined result of the number of RNA gene loci per genome and ploidy level, follows an allometric power law of cell volume with an exponent of 2/3 across 6 orders of magnitude in small subunit copy number per cell and 9 orders of magnitude in cell size. This stands in contrast to cell DNA content, which follows a power law with an exponent of ¾.

conclusionIn practical terms, that relationship allows for a single, simple correction for variations in both copy number per genome and ploidy level in ribosomal gene analyses of taxa-specific abundance. In biological terms, it points to the uniqueness of ribosomal gene content among microbial properties that scale with size. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

BacteriaMicrobiotaDNAHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNARNA, Ribosomal, 16SArchaeaBacteriaFungiGenomesMicrobiomesPloidyProtistsRibosomal genes

Identifiers

PMID34404486
PMCPMC8371883
OpenAlexW3129060766

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.