Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35694772›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2022

Interpretation of gut microbiota data in the 'eye of the beholder': A commentary and re-evaluation of data from 'Impacts of radiation exposure on the bacterial and fungal microbiome of small mammals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone'.

Phillip C Watts, Tapio Mappes, Eugene Tukalenko, Timothy A Mousseau, Zbyszek Boratyński, Anders P Møller, Anton Lavrinienko

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Phillip C WattsDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-7755-187X
Tapio MappesDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Eugene TukalenkoDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Timothy A MousseauDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2235-4868
Zbyszek BoratyńskiCIBIO/InBio, Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, University of Porto, Vairão, Portugal.
Anders P MøllerLaboratoire d'Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Université Paris-Sud 11, Orsay Cedex, France.
Anton LavrinienkoDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9524-8054
University of Jyväskylä · FINational Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine · UAUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversité Paris-Sud · FRUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

Academy of Finland 268670Academy of Finland 287153Academy of Finland 324602Academy of Finland 324604Oskar Öflund StiftelseSamuel Freeman Charitable TrustScholarship Fund of the University of OuluUniversity of Oulu Graduate School doctoral programme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence that exposure to environmental pollutants can alter the gut microbiota composition of wildlife includes studies of rodents exposed to radionuclides. Antwis et al. (2021) used amplicon sequencing to characterise the gut microbiota of four species of rodent (Myodes glareolus, Apodemus agrarius, A. flavicollis and A. sylvaticus) inhabiting the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) to examine possible changes in gut bacteria (microbiota) and gut fungi (mycobiota) associated with exposure to radionuclides and whether the sample type (from caecum or faeces) affected the analysis. The conclusions derived from the analyses of gut mycobiota are based on data that represent a mixture of ingested fungi (e.g. edible macrofungi, polypores, lichens and ectomycorrhizae) and gut mycobiota (e.g. microfungi and yeasts), which mask the patterns of inter- and intraspecific variation in the authentic gut mycobiota. Implying that 'faecal samples are not an accurate indicator of gut composition' creates an unnecessary controversy about faecal sampling because the comparison of samples from the caecum and faeces confounds many other possible drivers (including different animals from different locations, sampled in different years) of variation in gut microbiota. It is relevant also that Antwis et al.'s (2021) data lack statistical power to detect an effect of exposure to radionuclides on the gut microbiota because (1) all of their samples of Apodemus mice had experienced a medium or high total absorbed dose rate and (2) they did not collect samples of bank voles (M. glareolus) from replicate contaminated and uncontaminated locations. Discussion of Antwis et al.'s (2021) analysis, especially the claims presented in the Abstract, is important to prevent controversy about the outcome of research on the biological impacts of wildlife inhabiting the CEZ.

Indexed as

Chernobyl Nuclear AccidentGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMycobiomeRadiation ExposureAnimalsAnimals, WildArvicolinaeBacteriaFungiMammalsMiceMurinaeRadioisotopesRadioisotopesamplicon sequencingdietmicrobiotamycobiotaradiation effects

Identifiers

PMID35694772
PMCPMC9541917
OpenAlexW4282598398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.