Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33709229›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2021

Evaluation of Sample Preservation Approaches for Better Insect Microbiome Research According to Next-Generation and Third-Generation Sequencing.

Zi-Wen Yang, Yu Men, Jing Zhang, Zhi-Hui Liu, Jiu-Yang Luo, Yan-Hui Wang, Wen-Jun Li, Qiang Xie

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Comparison of gut bacterial communities ofBiodiversity data journal · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zi-Wen YangState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, Guangdong, China.
Yu MenState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, Guangdong, China.
Jing ZhangState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, Guangdong, China.
Zhi-Hui LiuState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, Guangdong, China.
Jiu-Yang LuoState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, Guangdong, China.
Yan-Hui WangState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, Guangdong, China.
Wen-Jun LiState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, Guangdong, China. liwenjun3@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Qiang XieState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, Guangdong, China. xieq8@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6376-8808
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31222051, 31772425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The microbial communities associated with insects play critical roles in many physiological functions such as digestion, nutrition, and defense. Meanwhile, with the development of sequencing technology, more and more studies begin to focus on broader biodiversity of insects and the corresponding mechanisms of insect microbial symbiosis, which need longer time collecting in the field. However, few studies have evaluated the effect of insect microbiome sample preservation approaches especially in different time durations or have assessed whether these approaches are appropriate for both next-generation sequencing (NGS) and third-generation sequencing (TGS) technologies. Here, we used Tessaratoma papillosa (Hemiptera: Tessaratomidae), an important litchi pest, as the model insect and adopted two sequencing technologies to evaluate the effect of four different preservation approaches (cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), ethanol, air dried, and RNAlater). We found the samples treated by air dried method, which entomologists adopted for morphological observation and classical taxonomy, would get worse soon. RNAlater as the most expensive approaches for insect microbiome sample preservation did not suit for field works longer than 1 month. We recommended CTAB and ethanol as better preservatives in longer time field work for their effectiveness and low cost. Comparing with the full-length 16S rRNA gene sequenced by TGS, the V4 region of 16S rRNA gene sequenced by NGS has a lower resolution trait and may misestimate the composition of microbial communities. Our results provided recommendations for suitable preservation approaches applied to insect microbiome studies based on two sequencing technologies, which can help researchers properly preserve samples in field works.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsBiodiversityHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingInsectaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16SAmplicon sequencingInsect microbiomeNext-generation sequencingPreservation approachesTessaratoma papillosaThird-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID33709229
OpenAlexW3133951285

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.