Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38212738›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2024

Biogeographic survey of soil bacterial communities across Antarctica.

Gilda Varliero, Pedro H Lebre, Byron Adams, Steven L Chown, Peter Convey, Paul G Dennis, Dandan Fan, Belinda Ferrari, Beat Frey, Ian D Hogg and 8 more

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Disentangling bacterial diversity and biogeography in snow-covered regions.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Emerging threats to Antarctic conservation.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors.

Gilda VarlieroDepartment of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Centre for Microbial Ecology and Genomics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa.
Pedro H LebreDepartment of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Centre for Microbial Ecology and Genomics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa.
Byron AdamsDepartment of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 84602, USA.
Steven L ChownSecuring Antarctica's Environmental Future, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VA, 3800, Australia.
Peter ConveyBritish Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK.
Paul G DennisSchool of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Dandan FanState Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER), Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China.
Belinda FerrariSchool of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Beat FreyRhizosphere Processes Group, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Ian D HoggSchool of Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
David W HopkinsSRUC - Scotland's Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, Scotland, UK.
Weidong KongState Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER), Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China.
Thulani MakhalanyaneDepartment of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa.
Gwynneth MatcherDepartment of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa.
Kevin K NewshamBritish Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK.
Mark I StevensSecuring Antarctica's Environmental Future, Earth and Biological Sciences, South Australian Museum, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Katherine V WeighSchool of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Don A CowanDepartment of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Centre for Microbial Ecology and Genomics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa. don.cowan@up.ac.za.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation 310030_215119
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntarctica and its unique biodiversity are increasingly at risk from the effects of global climate change and other human influences. A significant recent element underpinning strategies for Antarctic conservation has been the development of a system of Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). The datasets supporting this classification are, however, dominated by eukaryotic taxa, with contributions from the bacterial domain restricted to Actinomycetota and Cyanobacteriota. Nevertheless, the ice-free areas of the Antarctic continent and the sub-Antarctic islands are dominated in terms of diversity by bacteria. Our study aims to generate a comprehensive phylogenetic dataset of Antarctic bacteria with wide geographical coverage on the continent and sub-Antarctic islands, to investigate whether bacterial diversity and distribution is reflected in the current ACBRs.

resultsSoil bacterial diversity and community composition did not fully conform with the ACBR classification. Although 19% of the variability was explained by this classification, the largest differences in bacterial community composition were between the broader continental and maritime Antarctic regions, where a degree of structural overlapping within continental and maritime bacterial communities was apparent, not fully reflecting the division into separate ACBRs. Strong divergence in soil bacterial community composition was also apparent between the Antarctic/sub-Antarctic islands and the Antarctic mainland. Bacterial communities were partially shaped by bioclimatic conditions, with 28% of dominant genera showing habitat preferences connected to at least one of the bioclimatic variables included in our analyses. These genera were also reported as indicator taxa for the ACBRs.

conclusionsOverall, our data indicate that the current ACBR subdivision of the Antarctic continent does not fully reflect bacterial distribution and diversity in Antarctica. We observed considerable overlap in the structure of soil bacterial communities within the maritime Antarctic region and within the continental Antarctic region. Our results also suggest that bacterial communities might be impacted by regional climatic and other environmental changes. The dataset developed in this study provides a comprehensive baseline that will provide a valuable tool for biodiversity conservation efforts on the continent. Further studies are clearly required, and we emphasize the need for more extensive campaigns to systematically sample and characterize Antarctic and sub-Antarctic soil microbial communities. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

CyanobacteriaSoilAntarctic RegionsBiodiversityHumansPhylogenySoil MicrobiologySoilAntarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs)Antarctic soil microbiomeBioclimatic variablesBiogeographyMicrobial diversityRegionalizationSoils

Identifiers

PMID38212738
PMCPMC10785390

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.