Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36068230›Full record

ArticleNPJ biofilms and microbiomes2022

Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic insights into sulfate-reducing bacteria in a revegetated acidic mine wasteland.

Jin-Tian Li, Pu Jia, Xiao-Juan Wang, Shu-Ning Ou, Tao-Tao Yang, Shi-Wei Feng, Jing-Li Lu, Zhou Fang, Jun Liu, Bin Liao and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ biofilms and microbiomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Transcriptome-Based Analysis of the Oxidative Response ofCombinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jin-Tian Li *Institute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.ORCID 0000-0002-0848-5730
Pu Jia *Institute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.
Xiao-Juan WangInstitute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.
Shu-Ning OuInstitute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.
Tao-Tao YangSchool of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, PR China.
Shi-Wei FengInstitute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.
Jing-Li LuInstitute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.
Zhou FangInstitute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.
Jun LiuSchool of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, PR China.
Bin LiaoSchool of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, PR China.
Wen-Sheng ShuInstitute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.
Jie-Liang LiangInstitute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China. liangjl@m.scnu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-3949-7486
South China Normal University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The widespread occurrence of sulfate-reducing microorganisms (SRMs) in temporarily oxic/hypoxic aquatic environments indicates an intriguing possibility that SRMs can prevail in constantly oxic/hypoxic terrestrial sulfate-rich environments. However, little attention has been given to this possibility, leading to an incomplete understanding of microorganisms driving the terrestrial part of the global sulfur (S) cycle. In this study, genome-centric metagenomics and metatranscriptomics were employed to explore the diversity, metabolic potential, and gene expression profile of SRMs in a revegetated acidic mine wasteland under constantly oxic/hypoxic conditions. We recovered 16 medium- to high-quality metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) containing reductive dsrAB. Among them, 12 and four MAGs belonged to Acidobacteria and Deltaproteobacteria, respectively, harboring three new SRM genera. Comparative genomic analysis based on seven high-quality MAGs (completeness >90% and contamination <10%; including six acidobacterial and one deltaproteobacterial) and genomes of three additional cultured model species showed that Acidobacteria-related SRMs had more genes encoding glycoside hydrolases, oxygen-tolerant hydrogenases, and cytochrome c oxidases than Deltaproteobacteria-related SRMs. The opposite pattern was observed for genes encoding superoxide reductases and thioredoxin peroxidases. Using VirSorter, viral genome sequences were found in five of the 16 MAGs and in all three cultured model species. These prophages encoded enzymes involved in glycoside hydrolysis and antioxidation in their hosts. Moreover, metatranscriptomic analysis revealed that 15 of the 16 SRMs reported here were active in situ. An acidobacterial MAG containing a prophage dominated the SRM transcripts, expressing a large number of genes involved in its response to oxidative stress and competition for organic matter.

Indexed as

MetagenomeMetagenomicsBacteriaPhylogenySulfatesSulfates

Identifiers

PMID36068230
PMCPMC9448743
OpenAlexW4294756043

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.