ArticleMicroorganisms2022
Evaluating Methods of Preserving Aquatic Invertebrates for Microbiome Analysis.
Article in Microorganisms, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of feeding guild, seasonality, and warming on the gut microbiomes of Antarctic echinoderms.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of the mucosal and shell microbiota of Trachemys scripta elegans across multiple urban freshwater habitats.PloS one · 2026Article
- Microbial Distortion? Impacts of Delayed Preservation on Microbiome Diversity and Composition in a Marine Invertebrate.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
- Characterizing the Gut Microbial Communities of Native and Invasive Freshwater Bivalves after Long-Term Sample Preservation.Microorganisms · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Research on the microbiomes of animals has increased substantially within the past decades. More recently, microbial analyses of aquatic invertebrates have become of increased interest. The storage method used while collecting aquatic invertebrates has not been standardized throughout the scientific community, and the effects of common storage methods on the microbial composition of the organism is unknown. Using crayfish and dragonfly nymphs collected from a natural pond and crayfish maintained in an aquarium, the effects of two common storage methods, preserving in 95% ethanol and freezing at -20 °C, on the invertebrate bacterial microbiome was evaluated. We found that the bacterial community was conserved for two sample types (gut and exoskeleton) of field-collected crayfish stored either in ethanol or frozen, as was the gut microbiome of aquarium crayfish. However, there were significant differences between the bacterial communities found on the exoskeleton of aquarium crayfish stored in ethanol compared to those that were frozen. Dragonfly nymphs showed significant differences in gut microbial composition between species, but the microbiome was conserved between storage methods. These results demonstrate that preserving field-collected specimens of aquatic invertebrates in 95% ethanol is likely to be a simple and effective sample preservation method for subsequent gut microbiome analysis but is less reliable for the external microbiome.
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.