ReviewEnvironmental microbiology2022
Discrepancies between prokaryotes and eukaryotes need to be considered in soil DNA-based studies.
Review in Environmental microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Soil Microeukaryote Diversity in the Crop Fields of Panama.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- A Pilot Investigation of the Hidden Communities Associated With Dryas octopetala L. (Rosaceae) in Svalbard Using DNA Metabarcoding.Environmental microbiology reports · 2025Article
- Tracing non-fungal eukaryotic diversity via shotgun metagenomes in the complex mudflat intertidal zones.mSystems · 2025Article
- A novel taxonomic database for eukaryotic mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I gene (eKOI), with a focus on protists diversity.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Soil properties predict below-ground community structure, but not nematode microbiome patterns in semi-arid habitats.Molecular ecology · 2024Article
- Enumerating soil biodiversity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Review
- Protistan Predators Outshine Fungi in Forest Soil Activity.The Journal of eukaryotic microbiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metabarcoding approaches are exponentially increasing our understanding of soil biodiversity, with a major focus on the bacterial part of the microbiome. Part of the soil diversity are also eukaryotes that include fungi, algae, protists and Metazoa. Nowadays, soil eukaryotes are targeted with the same approaches developed for bacteria and archaea (prokaryotes). However, fundamental differences exist between domains. After providing a short historical overview of the developments of metabarcoding applied to environmental microbiology, we compile the most important differences between domains that prevent direct method transfers between prokaryotic and eukaryotic soil metabarcoding approaches, currently dominated by short-read sequencing. These include the existence of divergent diversity concepts and the variations in eukaryotic morphology that affect sampling and DNA extraction. Furthermore, eukaryotes experienced much more variable evolutionary rates than prokaryotes, which prevent capturing the entire eukaryotic diversity in a soil with a single amplification protocol fit for short-read sequencing. In the final part we focus on future potentials for optimization of eukaryotic metabarcoding that include superior possibility of functionally characterizing eukaryotes and to extend the current information obtained, such as by adding a real quantitative component. This review should optimize future metabarcoding approaches targeting soil eukaryotes and kickstart this promising research direction.
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.