Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36312987›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022

Random sampling associated with microbial profiling leads to overestimated stochasticity inference in community assembly.

Kai Ma, Qichao Tu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

2 authors.

Kai MaInstitute of Marine Science and Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao, China.
Qichao TuInstitute of Marine Science and Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Revealing the mechanisms governing the complex community assembly over space and time is a central issue in ecology. Null models have been developed to quantitatively disentangle the relative importance of deterministic vs. stochastic processes in structuring the compositional variations of biological communities. Similar approaches have been recently extended to the field of microbial ecology. However, the profiling of highly diverse biological communities (e.g., microbial communities) is severely influenced by random sampling issues, leading to undersampled community profiles and overestimated β-diversity, which may further affect stochasticity inference in community assembly. By implementing simulated datasets, this study demonstrate that microbial stochasticity inference is also affected due to random sampling issues associated with microbial profiling. The effects on microbial stochasticity inference for the whole community and the abundant subcommunities were different using different randomization methods in generating null communities. The stochasticity of rare subcommunities, however, was persistently overestimated irrespective of which randomization method was used. Comparatively, the stochastic ratio approach was more sensitive to random sampling issues, whereas the Raup-Crick metric was more affected by randomization methods. As more studies begin to focus on the mechanisms governing abundant and rare subcommunities, we urge cautions be taken for microbial stochasticity inference based on β-diversity, especially for rare subcommunities. Randomization methods to generate null communities shall also be carefully selected. When necessary, the cutoff used for judging the relative importance of deterministic vs. stochastic processes shall be redefined.

Indexed as

microbial communitynull modelsrandom samplingRaup–Crick metricsequencing depthstochasticityβ-diversity

Identifiers

PMID36312987
PMCPMC9598869

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.