Cited by 291Microbial Community Ecology and PhysiologyGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications

Assessing species biomass contributions in microbial communities via metaproteomics

Open access
Kleiner, Manuel, Thorson, Erin, Sharp, Christine E., Dong, Xiaoli, Liu, Dan, Li, Carmen, Strous, Marc·2017·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Microbial community structure can be analyzed by quantifying cell numbers or by quantifying biomass for individual populations. Methods for quantifying cell numbers are already available (e.g., fluorescence in situ hybridization, 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing), yet high-throughput methods for assessing community structure in terms of biomass are lacking. Here we present metaproteomics-based methods for assessing microbial community structure using protein abundance as a measure for biomass contributions of individual populations. We optimize the accuracy and sensitivity of the method using artificially assembled microbial communities and show that it is less prone to some of the biases found in sequencing-based methods. We apply the method to communities from two different environments, microbial mats from two alkaline soda lakes, and saliva from multiple individuals. We show that assessment of species biomass contributions adds an important dimension to the analysis of microbial community structure.

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/s41467-017-01544-x

Cites

3 of 3 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kleiner, M., Thorson, E., Sharp, C. E., Dong, X., Liu, D., Li, C., & Strous, M.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Kleiner, Manuel
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2017-11-16
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
1558-1558
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2950438666
Cited by
291
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
15.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Calgary
  • Canada First Research Excellence Fund
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Keywords
microbial community structure, species biomass, protein abundance, metaproteomics, microbial mats, saliva microbiota, sequencing bias, population abundance estimation
MeSH terms
Archaea, Bacteria, Bacteriophages, Humans, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Saliva, Biomass, Proteome, Genomics, Proteomics, Lakes, Microbiota

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