ArticleCurrent microbiology2022
Next-Generation Sequencing Results Vary Between Cultured and Uncultured Microbes.
Article in Current microbiology, 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.
- Bacteria and Fungi Synergistically Reprogram Flavonoid Metabolites in the Pericarp of Citrus Reticulata 'Chachi' During Storage.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Unlocking the Potential of Metagenomics with the PacBio High-Fidelity Sequencing Technology.Microorganisms · 2024Review
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
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has led to innovations in environmental metagenomics and investigations involving humans and microbes. However, it is necessary to analyze the components that will affect analysis of the method upon processing a large amount of information. In particular, the processing method after sample collection affects the NGS results, and it is necessary to check for inaccurate results. Here, we show that the microbial communities obtained from fingertip samples differ from those obtained from fingertips remaining on mobile phones and desks, when cultured or not for 24 h. We also confirmed changes in microbial communities in fingertip samples from desks incubated for 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 h. Samples of prints from mobile phones that are considerably vulnerable to external factors were not analyzed. Ratios of Firmicutes and Bacillus were, respectively, increased in cultures at the phylum and species levels. Collectively, we identified bacterial species that can aid in determining whether a sample has been cultured. In addition, although microbial communities differed depending on sample types, we confirmed changes after culture for 4 and 8 h. However, since this study is a sample limited to three types, it is necessary to analyze other types of samples in the same way and check whether they are applicable to all types. This strategy can verify the suitability of samples for deriving informative results from cultured or uncultured bacterial communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35524899What 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.