ArticleScientific data2020
Two hundred and fifty-four metagenome-assembled bacterial genomes from the bank vole gut microbiota.
Article in Scientific data, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive genome catalog analysis of the resistome, virulome and mobilome in the wild rodent gut microbiota.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
- A review of neural networks for metagenomic binning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Seasonal shifts and land-use impact: unveiling the gut microbiomes of bank voles (Myodes glareolus) and common voles (Microtus arvalis).FEMS microbiology ecology · 2024Article
- The multi-kingdom microbiome of the goat gastrointestinal tract.Microbiome · 2023Article
- Trait biases in microbial reference genomes.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Metagenomic Insights into Chicken Gut Antibiotic Resistomes and Microbiomes.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Bifidobacterium castoris strains isolated from wild mice show evidence of frequent host switching and diverse carbohydrate metabolism potential.ISME communications · 2022Article
- The microbiome of the buffalo digestive tract.Nature communications · 2022Article
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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Vertebrate gut microbiota provide many essential services to their host. To better understand the diversity of such services provided by gut microbiota in wild rodents, we assembled metagenome shotgun sequence data from a small mammal, the bank vole Myodes glareolus (Rodentia, Cricetidae). We were able to identify 254 metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) that were at least 50% (n = 133 MAGs), 80% (n = 77 MAGs) or 95% (n = 44 MAGs) complete. As typical for a rodent gut microbiota, these MAGs are dominated by taxa assigned to the phyla Bacteroidetes (n = 132 MAGs) and Firmicutes (n = 80), with some Spirochaetes (n = 15) and Proteobacteria (n = 11). Based on coverage over contigs, Bacteroidetes were estimated to be most abundant group, followed by Firmicutes, Spirochaetes and Proteobacteria. These draft bacterial genomes can be used freely to determine the likely functions of gut microbiota community composition in wild rodents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.