ArticleISME communications2025
Insights into the biotic factors driving the outcome of coalescence events between soil bacterial communities.
Article in ISME communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predator-driven microbial feedback loops promote plant health.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Bacterial community adaptation after brackish and freshwater coalescence.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Microbial community coalescence restructures co-occurrence architecture and generates regime-specific patterns of network complexity and stability.ISME communications · 2026Article
- The fungal pathogenISME communications · 2026Article
- Rhizosphere legacy of leaf-diseased rice and its impact on next generation.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coalescence events, which consist in the mixing of previously separated communities, are frequent in nature or as a result of human activities. Despite recently gaining attention as a tool to test ecological theories and engineer microbial communities, little is known about the factors that influence the outcome of such coalescence events. Here, we evaluated the relative importance of three community properties-namely, diversity, composition, and density-in determining coalescence outcome and biotic interactions among members of the coalescing bacterial communities. We found that manipulation of the density and composition of soil bacterial community resulted in the largest shifts in the structure of the resulting coalesced communities, explaining 24.7% and 6.8% of the variance in the β-diversity of the coalesced communities, respectively. Coalescence events impacted up to 35% of the dominant Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTUs) in the native community, with a predominance of negative effects. Our results also revealed that community density had the greatest explanatory power for the variance in the relative abundance of the OTUs negatively affected by coalescence events. In particular, all significantly affected OTUs that belonged to the Bacillales exhibited a decrease in relative abundance in several of the coalesced communities, which was related to the density of some members of the α-Proteobacteria and γ-Proteobacteria in the manipulated community suspensions. Overall, our data suggest that community density and composition were the main properties determining the outcome of coalescence events and that coalescence experiments can offer insights into multi-species interactions in complex environments.
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.