Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 204

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring the biodiversity of microbial communities by flow cytometry

Props, Ruben, Monsieurs, Pieter, Mysara, Mohamed, Clement, Lieven, Boon, Nico·2016·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Summary: Measuring the microbial diversity in natural and engineered environments is important for ecosystem characterization, ecosystem monitoring and hypothesis testing. Although the conventional assessment through single marker gene surveys has resulted in major advances, the complete procedure remains slow (i.e. weeks to months), labour‐intensive and susceptible to multiple sources of laboratory and data processing bias. Growing interest, in highly resolved, temporal surveys of microbial diversity, necessitates rapid, inexpensive and robust analytical platforms that require limited computational effort. Here, we demonstrate that sensitive single‐cell measurements of phenotypic attributes, obtained via flow cytometry, can provide fast (i.e. within minutes) first‐line assessments of microbial diversity dynamics, without demanding extensive sample preparation and downstream data processing. We developed a data processing pipeline that fits bivariate kernel density functions to phenotypic parameter combinations of an entire microbial community and concatenates them to a single one‐dimensional phenotypic fingerprint. By calculating established diversity metrics from such phenotypic fingerprints, we construct an alternative interpretation of the microbial diversity that incorporates distinct phenotypic traits underlying cell‐to‐cell heterogeneity (i.e. morphology and nucleic acid content). Based on a detailed longitudinal study of a highly dynamic microbial ecosystem, our approach delivered temporal alpha diversity profiles that strongly correlated with the reference diversity, as estimated by 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. This strongly suggests that the distribution of a limited amount of phenotypic features within a microbial community already provides sufficient resolving power for the measurement of diversity dynamics at the species level. We present a fast, robust analysis method for monitoring the microbial biodiversity of natural and engineered ecosystems that correlates well with the conventional marker gene surveys. Our work has both applied and fundamental implications that stretch from ecosystem monitoring and studies on microbial community dynamics, to supervised sampling strategies. Furthermore, our approach offers perspectives for the development of online and in situ monitoring systems for microbial ecosystems.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.12607

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 204

Metadata

Authors
Props, R., Monsieurs, P., Mysara, M., Clement, L., & Boon, N.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07-15
Volume
7
Issue
11
Pages
1376-1385
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2467532039
Cited by
204
References
3
FWCI
11.64
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: Measuring the biodiversity of microbial communities by flow cytometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12607
The paper
Props, R., Monsieurs, P., Mysara, M., Clement, L., & Boon, N. (2016). Measuring the biodiversity of microbial communities by flow cytometry. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12607

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.