The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Protistan microbial observatory in the Cariaco Basin, Caribbean. I. Pyrosequencing vs Sanger insights into species richness
Open accessAbstract
Microbial diversity and distribution are topics of intensive research. In two companion papers in this issue, we describe the results of the Cariaco Microbial Observatory (Caribbean Sea, Venezuela). The Basin contains the largest body of marine anoxic water, and presents an opportunity to study protistan communities across biogeochemical gradients. In the first paper, we survey 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequence diversity using both Sanger- and pyrosequencing-based approaches, employing multiple PCR primers, and state-of-the-art statistical analyses to estimate microbial richness missed by the survey. Sampling the Basin at three stations, in two seasons, and at four depths with distinct biogeochemical regimes, we obtained the largest, and arguably the least biased collection of over 6000 nearly full-length protistan rRNA gene sequences from a given oceanographic regime to date, and over 80 000 pyrosequencing tags. These represent all major and many minor protistan taxa, at frequencies globally similar between the two sequence collections. This large data set provided, via the recently developed parametric modeling, the first statistically sound prediction of the total size of protistan richness in a large and varied environment, such as the Cariaco Basin: over 36 000 species, defined as almost full-length 18S rRNA gene sequence clusters sharing over 99% sequence homology. This richness is a small fraction of the grand total of known protists (over 100 000–500 000 species), suggesting a degree of protistan endemism.
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
Base-Calling of Automated Sequencer Traces Using Phred. II. Error Probabilities
Ewing, B., & Green, P. (1998) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.8.3.186 · Cited by 5,439
Cited by
Guillou, L., Bachar, D., Audic, S., Bass, D., Berney, C., Bittner, L., Boutte, C., Burgaud, G., de Vargas, C., Decelle, J., et al. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks1160 · Cited by 2,362
Self-citationOberbeckmann, S., Osborn, A. M., & Duhaime, M. B. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159289 · Cited by 572
Massana, R., Gobet, A., Audic, S., Bass, D., Bittner, L., Boutte, C., Chambouvet, A., Christen, R., Claverie, J., Decelle, J., et al. (2015) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12955 · Cited by 388
Self-citationPiredda, R., Tomasino, M. P., D'Erchia, A. M., Manzari, C., Pesole, G., Montresor, M., Kooistra, W. H. C. F., Sarno, D., & Zingone, A. (2017) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1093/femsec/fiw200 · Cited by 266
Diamond, C. W., Ernst, R. E., Zhang, S., & Lyons, T. W. (2021) · Geophysical Monograph Series · doi:10.1002/9781119507444.ch21 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Edgcomb, V., Orsi, W., Bunge, J., Jeon, S., Christen, R., Leslin, C., Holder, M., Taylor, G. T., Suarez, P., Varela, R., & Epstein, S.
- Venue
- The ISME Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-03-10
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1344-1356
- ISSN
- 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-7370
- OpenAlex
- W2061582658
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Protistan microbial observatory in the Cariaco Basin, Caribbean. I. Pyrosequencing vs Sanger insights into species richness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2011.6
- The paper
- Edgcomb, V., Orsi, W., Bunge, J., Jeon, S., Christen, R., Leslin, C., Holder, M., Taylor, G. T., Suarez, P., Varela, R., & Epstein, S. (2011). Protistan microbial observatory in the Cariaco Basin, Caribbean. I. Pyrosequencing vs Sanger insights into species richness. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.6
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.