Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35146390›Full record

ReviewiScience2022

Conceptual strategies for characterizing interactions in microbial communities.

Sho M Kodera, Promi Das, Jack A Gilbert, Holly L Lutz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating Metabolic Support in Pairwise Microbial Communities Using MetQuest.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Detecting (the Absence of) Species Interactions in Microbial Ecological Systems.Studies in applied mathematics (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Hypernetwork modeling and topology of high-order interactions for complex systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Sho M KoderaScripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Promi DasCenter for Microbiome Innovation, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Jack A GilbertScripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Holly L LutzCenter for Microbiome Innovation, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the sets of inter- and intraspecies interactions in microbial communities is a fundamental goal of microbial ecology. However, the study and quantification of microbial interactions pose several challenges owing to their complexity, dynamic nature, and the sheer number of unique interactions within a typical community. To overcome such challenges, microbial ecologists must rely on various approaches to distill the system of study to a functional and conceptualizable level, allowing for a practical understanding of microbial interactions in both simplified and complex systems. This review broadly addresses the role of several conceptual approaches available for the microbial ecologist's arsenal, examines specific tools used to accomplish such approaches, and describes how the assumptions, expectations, and philosophies underlying these tools change across scales of complexity.

Indexed as

Biological sciencesEcologyMicrobiology

Identifiers

PMID35146390
PMCPMC8819398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.