ArticlePeerJ2022
Metabarcoding of the phytotelmata of
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the mycobiota of bromeliads phytotelmata in Brazilian Campos Rupestres.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023Article
- Diversity and putative metabolic function of prokaryotic communities in tank bromeliads along an elevation gradient in tropical Mexico.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsWater from 10 individuals was sampled. Five individuals had abundant surrounding vegetation, and five had little or no vegetation. We extracted DNA and amplified seven hypervariable regions of the 16S gene (V2, V4, V8, V3-6, 7-9). Metabarcoding sequencing was performed on the Ion Torrent PGM platform. Taxonomic identity was assigned by the binning reads and coverage between hit and query from the reference database of at least 90%. Putative metabolic functions of the bacterial families were assigned mainly using the FAPROTAX database. The dominance patterns in each site were visualized with rank/abundance curves using the number of Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) per family. A percentage similarity analysis (SIMPER) was used to estimate dissimilarity between the sites. Relationships among bacterial families (identified by the dominance analysis and SIMPER), sites, and their respective putative functions were analyzed with shade plots.
resultsA total of 1.5 million useful bacterial sequences were obtained. Sequences were clustered into OTUs, and taxonomic assignment was conducted using BLAST in the Greengenes databases. Bacterial diversity was 23 phyla, 52 classes, 98 orders, 218 families, and 297 genera. Proteobacteria (37%), Actinobacteria (19%), and Firmicutes (15%) comprised the highest percentage (71%). There was a 68.3% similarity between the two sites at family level, with 149 families shared. Aerobic chemoheterotrophy and fermentation were the main metabolic functions in both sites, followed by ureolysis, nitrate reduction, aromatic compound degradation, and nitrogen fixation. The dominant bacteria shared most of the metabolic functions between sites. Some functions were recorded for one site only and were related to families with the lowest OTUs richness. Bacterial diversity in the
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.