ArticlePloS one2024
Diverse patterns of correspondence between protist metabarcodes and protist metagenome-assembled genomes.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identification of a deep-branching lineage of algae using environmental plastid genomes.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two common approaches to study the composition of environmental protist communities are metabarcoding and metagenomics. Raw metabarcoding data are usually processed into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) or amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) through clustering or denoising approaches, respectively. Analogous approaches are used to assemble metagenomic reads into metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). Understanding the correspondence between the data produced by these two approaches can help to integrate information between the datasets and to explain how metabarcoding OTUs and MAGs are related with the underlying biological entities they are hypothesised to represent. MAGs do not contain the commonly used barcoding loci, therefore sequence homology approaches cannot be used to match OTUs and MAGs. We made an attempt to match V9 metabarcoding OTUs from the 18S rRNA gene (V9 OTUs) and MAGs from the Tara Oceans expedition based on the correspondence of their relative abundances across the same set of samples. We evaluated several metrics for detecting correspondence between features in these two datasets and developed controls to filter artefacts of data structure and processing. After selecting the best-performing metrics, ranking the V9 OTU/MAG matches by their proportionality/correlation coefficients and applying a set of selection criteria, we identified candidate matches between V9 OTUs and MAGs. In some cases, V9 OTUs and MAGs could be matched with a one-to-one correspondence, implying that they likely represent the same underlying biological entity. More generally, matches we observed could be classified into 4 scenarios: one V9 OTU matches many MAGs; many V9 OTUs match many MAGs; many V9 OTUs match one MAG; one V9 OTU matches one MAG. Notably, we found some instances in which different OTU-MAG matches from the same taxonomic group were not classified in the same scenario, with all four scenarios possible even within the same taxonomic group, illustrating that factors beyond taxonomic lineage influence the relationship between OTUs and MAGs. Overall, each scenario produces a different interpretation of V9 OTUs, MAGs and how they compare in terms of the genomic and ecological diversity they represent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.