Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34758745›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2021

Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs.

Morag Clinton, Adam J Wyness, Samuel A M Martin, Andrew S Brierley, David E K Ferrier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Morag ClintonScottish Oceans Institute, Gatty Marine Laboratory, School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB, UK. mclinton2@alaska.edu.
Adam J WynessScottish Oceans Institute, Gatty Marine Laboratory, School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB, UK.
Samuel A M MartinSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK.
Andrew S BrierleyScottish Oceans Institute, Gatty Marine Laboratory, School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB, UK.
David E K FerrierScottish Oceans Institute, Gatty Marine Laboratory, School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB, UK. dekf@st-andrews.ac.uk.
University of St Andrews · GBRhodes University · ZAUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the influence of methodology on results is an essential consideration in experimental design. In the expanding field of fish microbiology, many best practices and targeted techniques remain to be refined. This study aimed to compare microbial assemblages obtained from Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) gills by swabbing versus biopsy excision. Results demonstrate the variation introduced by altered sampling strategies and enhance the available knowledge of the fish gill microbiome.

resultsThe microbiome was sampled using swabs and biopsies from fish gills, with identical treatment of samples for 16S next generation Illumina sequencing. Results show a clear divergence in microbial communities obtained through the different sampling strategies, with swabbing consistently isolating a more diverse microbial consortia, and suffering less from the technical issue of host DNA contamination associated with biopsy use. Sequencing results from biopsy-derived extractions, however, hint at the potential for more cryptic localisation of some community members.

conclusionsOverall, results demonstrate a divergence in the obtained microbial community when different sampling methodology is used. Swabbing appears a superior method for sampling the microbiota of mucosal surfaces for broad ecological research in fish, whilst biopsies might be best applied in exploration of communities beyond the reach of swabs, such as sub-surface and intracellular microbes, as well as in pathogen diagnosis. Most studies on the external microbial communities of aquatic organisms utilise swabbing for sample collection, likely due to convenience. Much of the ultrastructure of gill tissue in live fish is, however, potentially inaccessible to swabbing, meaning swabbing might fail to capture the full diversity of gill microbiota. This work therefore also provides valuable insight into partitioning of the gill microbiota, informing varied applications of different sampling methods in experimental design for future research.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsAquacultureBacteriaGillsPhylogenySalmo salarSkinSpecimen HandlingAquacultureAtlantic salmonExperimental designGill microbiotaMicrobial assemblagesSampling methodologyVeterinary microbiology

Identifiers

PMID34758745
PMCPMC8579561
OpenAlexW3213544253

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.