ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2025
Microbial Distortion? Impacts of Delayed Preservation on Microbiome Diversity and Composition in a Marine Invertebrate.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2025. 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.
- Depuration of a solitary ascidian depletes transient bacteria without altering microbiome alpha-diversity.FEMS microbiology ecology · 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
Field collections of marine invertebrates are often accompanied by delays in preservation, which may impact microbiome composition. Here, we tested the effects of delayed preservation and relaxation methods on microbiome diversity and composition in the colonial ascidian Trididemnum solidum using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Replicate samples collected from Belizean reefs were either (1) immediately preserved in ethanol ("control"), (2) held in ambient seawater for 3 h before preservation ("SW"), or (3) held in ambient seawater with menthol (a common pre-preservation relaxation technique for ascidian identification) for 3 h before preservation ("SW + M"). All T. solidum microbiomes were different from ambient seawater bacterioplankton and dominated by the same microbial taxa, including the genera Thalassobaculum, Tistrella, and Synechocystis. However, the 3-h delay in sample preservation (SW) significantly reduced microbiome richness compared to controls (p = 0.028), while menthol treatment (SW + M) mitigated this diversity loss (p = 0.208). Microbial composition at the community level did not differ significantly for either delayed preservation method compared to controls (SW p = 0.054, SW + M p = 0.052). Taxon-level shifts were rare but did occur, most notably a bloom of the facultatively anaerobic gammaproteobacterium Catenococcus that was 37x (SW) and 197x (SW + M) more abundant in delayed preservations. After a 3-h preservation delay (SW), only 122 microbial taxa (1.85% of total) exhibited significantly differential abundances with controls, with menthol treatment (SW + M) reducing taxon-level shifts to 65 taxa (0.98%). Our results showed that brief delays in preservation did not significantly alter community-level microbiome composition and dominant taxa, with menthol exposure counteracting minor microbiome shifts associated with preservation delays.
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.