ArticlePhysiological genomics2022
Gut microbiota of wild fish as reporters of compromised aquatic environments sleuthed through machine learning.
Article in Physiological genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Gut Microbiota in Fish Viral Infection: Mechanisms and Microbiota-Targeted Interventions.Aquaculture nutrition · 2026Review
- Do fish gut microbiotas vary across spatial scales? A case study of Diplodus vulgaris in the Mediterranean Sea.Animal microbiome · 2024Article
- Comparative study of the gut microbial communities collected by scraping and swabbing in a fish model: a comprehensive guide to promote non-lethal procedures for gut microbial studies.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Small fish, big discoveries: zebrafish shed light on microbial biomarkers for neuro-immune-cardiovascular health.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- Highlighting recent impactful publications inPhysiological genomics · 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
Abstract
Human-generated negative impacts on aquatic environments are rising. Despite wild fish playing a key role in aquatic ecologies and comprising a major global food source, physiological consequences of these impacts on them are poorly understood. Here we address the issue through the lens of interrelationship between wild fish and their gut microbiota, hypothesizing that fish microbiota are reporters of the aquatic environs. Two geographically separate teleost wild-fish species were studied (Lake Erie, Ohio, and Caribbean Sea, US Virgin Islands). At each geolocation, fresh fecal samples were collected from fish in areas of presence or absence of known aquatic compromise. Gut microbiota was assessed via microbial 16S-rRNA gene sequencing and represents the first complete report for both fish species. Despite marked differences in geography, climate, water type, fish species, habitat, diet, and gut microbial compositions, the pattern of shifts in microbiota shared by both fish species was nearly identical due to aquatic compromise. Next, these data were subjected to machine learning (ML) to examine reliability of using the fish-gut microbiota as an ecomarker for anthropogenic aquatic impacts. Independent of geolocation, ML predicted aquatic compromise with remarkable accuracy (>90%). Overall, this study represents the first multispecies stress-related comparison of its kind and demonstrates the potential of artificial intelligence via ML as a tool for biomonitoring and detecting compromised aquatic conditions.
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.