Cited by 398Microbial Community Ecology and PhysiologySoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Relationships between protein-encoding gene abundance and corresponding process are commonly assumed yet rarely observed

Open access
Rocca, Jennifer D, Hall, Edward K, Lennon, Jay T, Evans, Sarah E, Waldrop, Mark P, Cotner, James B, Nemergut, Diana R, Graham, Emily B +1 more·2015·The ISME Journal

Abstract

For any enzyme-catalyzed reaction to occur, the corresponding protein-encoding genes and transcripts are necessary prerequisites. Thus, a positive relationship between the abundance of gene or transcripts and corresponding process rates is often assumed. To test this assumption, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relationships between gene and/or transcript abundances and corresponding process rates. We identified 415 studies that quantified the abundance of genes or transcripts for enzymes involved in carbon or nitrogen cycling. However, in only 59 of these manuscripts did the authors report both gene or transcript abundance and rates of the appropriate process. We found that within studies there was a significant but weak positive relationship between gene abundance and the corresponding process. Correlations were not strengthened by accounting for habitat type, differences among genes or reaction products versus reactants, suggesting that other ecological and methodological factors may affect the strength of this relationship. Our findings highlight the need for fundamental research on the factors that control transcription, translation and enzyme function in natural systems to better link genomic and transcriptomic data to ecosystem processes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ismej.2014.252

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The prediction of process rates from the presence and quantity of genes and transcripts is yet to be clearly established.

    “However, the prediction of process rates from the presence and quantity of genes and transcripts is yet to be clearly established (Rocca et al., 2015).”

    From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Rocca et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Viechtbauer W. Conducting a meta-analysis in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rocca, J. D., Hall, E. K., Lennon, J. T., Evans, S. E., Waldrop, M. P., Cotner, J. B., Nemergut, D. R., Graham, E. B., & Wallenstein, M. D.
Affiliations
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University , Fort Collins, CO, USA
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Rocca, Jennifer D
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2014-12-23
Volume
9
Issue
8
Pages
1693-1699
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2024344827
Cited by
398
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 6
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The ISME Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Geological Survey
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
gene abundance, mRNA levels, enzyme activity, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycling, transcription and translation, metagenomics, metatranscriptomics, ecosystem processes
MeSH terms
Carbon, Catalysis, Dosage Compensation, Genetic, Nitrogen, Transcription, Genetic, Gene Expression Regulation, Bacterial, Ecosystem, Gene Dosage, Gene Expression Profiling, Biocatalysis

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