The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The tragedy of the uncommon: understanding limitations in the analysis of microbial diversity
Abstract
Molecular microbial community analysis methods have revolutionized our understanding of the diversity and distribution of bacteria, archaea and microbial eukaryotes. The information obtained has adequately demonstrated that the analysis of microbial model systems can provide important insights into ecosystem function and stability. However, the terminology and metrics used in macroecology must be applied cautiously because the methods available to characterize microbial diversity are inherently limited in their ability to detect the many numerically minor constituents of microbial communities. In this review, we focus on the use of indices to quantify the diversity found in microbial communities, and on the methods used to generate the data from which those indices are calculated. Useful conclusions regarding diversity can only be deduced if the properties of the various methods used are well understood. The commonly used diversity metrics differ in the weight they give to organisms that differ in abundance, so understanding the properties of these metrics is essential. In this review, we illustrate important methodological and metric-dependent differences using simulated communities. We conclude that the assessment of richness in complex communities is futile without extensive sampling, and that some diversity indices can be estimated with reasonable accuracy through the analysis of clone libraries, but not from community fingerprint data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x · Cited by 48,949
SIMPSON, E. H. (1949) · Nature · doi:10.1038/163688a0 · Cited by 14,164
The Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W., & Wiener, N. (1950) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3067010 · Cited by 9,801
Diversity and Evenness: A Unifying Notation and Its Consequences
Hill, M. O. (1973) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1934352 · Cited by 6,344
Woese, C. R. (1987) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mr.51.2.221-271.1987 · Cited by 5,042
Prokaryotes: The unseen majority
Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C., & Wiebe, W. J. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578 · Cited by 4,871 · cited 1×
“, 2005) and the Earth’s biosphere containing more than 10 individuals (Whitman et al., 1998) and an untold number of species.”
BackgroundJost, L. (2006) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14714.x · Cited by 4,669
Resource Competition and Community Structure.
Harper, J. L., & Tilman, D. (1983) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2259756 · Cited by 4,180
Resource Competition and Community Structure
Hassell, M. P., & Tilman, D. (1984) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/4549 · Cited by 4,176
Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis
Yachi, S., & Loreau, M. (1999) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.96.4.1463 · Cited by 3,211
Cited by
Composting of food wastes: status and challenges
Cerda, A., Artola, A., Font, X., Barrena, R., Gea, T., & Sánchez, A. (2018) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.133 · Cited by 625
RETRACTED: Changes in global trends in food waste composting: Research challenges and opportunities
Awasthi, S. K., Sarsaiya, S., Awasthi, M. K., Liu, T., Zhao, J., Kumar, S., & Zhang, Z. (2020) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122555 · Cited by 281
RetractedHuman gut microbiota: Does diet matter?
Maukonen, J., & Saarela, M. (2015) · Proceedings of The Nutrition Society · doi:10.1017/s0029665114000688 · Cited by 177
Durand, L., Zbinden, M., Cueff-Gauchard, V., Duperron, S., Roussel, E. G., Shillito, B., & Cambon-Bonavita, M.-A. (2010) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00806.x · Cited by 100
Guri, M., Durand, L., Cueff-Gauchard, V., Zbinden, M., Crassous, P., Shillito, B., & Cambon-Bonavita, M.-A. (2012) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2011.133 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Bent, S. J., & Forney, L. J.
- Venue
- The ISME Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-05-08
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 689-695
- ISSN
- 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-7370
- OpenAlex
- W1975157464
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 21.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The tragedy of the uncommon: understanding limitations in the analysis of microbial diversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2008.44
- The paper
- Bent, S. J., & Forney, L. J. (2008). The tragedy of the uncommon: understanding limitations in the analysis of microbial diversity. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2008.44
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.