Article in Journal of nematology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 59% 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
E N KashinskayaInstitute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Research group of physiology and genetics of hydrobionts; Frunze St. 11, Novosibirsk, 630091, Russia.
E P SimonovInstitute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Research group of physiology and genetics of hydrobionts; Frunze St. 11, Novosibirsk, 630091, Russia.
P G VlasenkoInstitute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Research group of physiology and genetics of hydrobionts; Frunze St. 11, Novosibirsk, 630091, Russia.
G N MarkevichKronotsky State Nature Biosphere Reserve, Yelizovo.
A V ShokurovaInstitute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Research group of physiology and genetics of hydrobionts; Frunze St. 11, Novosibirsk, 630091, Russia.
K B AndreeInstituto de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentarias; Cultius Aquàtics; San Carlos de la Rapita, Tarragona, ES 08140, Spain.
M M SolovyevInstitute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Research group of physiology and genetics of hydrobionts; Frunze St. 11, Novosibirsk, 630091, Russia.
Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals · RUCentro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón · ESKronotsky Reserve · RU
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
Using the approach of sequencing the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene, we have analyzed the bacterial diversity associated with the gut and "body" (other parts of nematode after dissection: cuticle, epidermis and longitudinal muscles, etc) of
Indexed as
18S and 28S rRNACystidicola farionisGut microbiotaNosed charrSalvelinus malma complexV3–V4 region of 16S rRNA
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.
The gut microbiota of · full record | OpenQuestion