The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
It's all relative: ranking the diversity of aquatic bacterial communities
Abstract
Summary: The study of microbial diversity patterns is hampered by the enormous diversity of microbial communities and the lack of resources to sample them exhaustively. For many questions about richness and evenness, however, one only needs to know the relative order of diversity among samples rather than total diversity. We used 16S libraries from the Global Ocean Survey to investigate the ability of 10 diversity statistics (including rarefaction, non‐parametric, parametric, curve extrapolation and diversity indices) to assess the relative diversity of six aquatic bacterial communities. Overall, we found that the statistics yielded remarkably similar rankings of the samples for a given sequence similarity cut‐off. This correspondence, despite the different underlying assumptions of the statistics, suggests that diversity statistics are a useful tool for ranking samples of microbial diversity. In addition, sequence similarity cut‐off influenced the diversity ranking of the samples, demonstrating that diversity statistics can also be used to detect differences in phylogenetic structure among microbial communities. Finally, a subsampling analysis suggests that further sequencing from these particular clone libraries would not have substantially changed the richness rankings of the samples.
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
The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities
Fierer, N., & Jackson, R. B. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507535103 · Cited by 5,711
The contribution of species richness and composition to bacterial services
Bell, T., Newman, J. A., Silverman, B. W., Turner, S. L., & Lilley, A. K. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03891 · Cited by 950
Cited by
Lauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Knight, R., & Fierer, N. (2009) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00335-09 · Cited by 4,063
Transitions in bacterial communities along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea
Herlemann, D. P. R., Labrenz, M., Jürgens, K., Bertilsson, S., Waniek, J. J., & Andersson, A. F. (2011) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2011.41 · Cited by 2,885
Tumor-resident intracellular microbiota promotes metastatic colonization in breast cancer
Fu, A., Yao, B., Dong, T., Chen, Y., Yao, J., Liu, Y., Li, H., Bai, H., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., et al. (2022) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.02.027 · Cited by 981
Global ecological patterns in uncultured Archaea
Auguet, J.-C., Barberan, A., & Casamayor, E. O. (2010) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2009.109 · Cited by 455
Functional genomic signatures of sponge bacteria reveal unique and shared features of symbiosis
Thomas, T., Rusch, D., DeMaere, M. Z., Yung, P. Y., Lewis, M., Halpern, A., Heidelberg, K. B., Egan, S., Steinberg, P. D., & Kjelleberg, S. (2010) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2010.74 · Cited by 305
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaw, A. K., Halpern, A. L., Beeson, K., Tran, B., Venter, J. C., & Martiny, J. B. H.
- Venue
- Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08-12
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2200-2210
- ISSN
- 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
- 1462-2920
- OpenAlex
- W1974066189
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.23
- 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: It's all relative: ranking the diversity of aquatic bacterial communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01626.x
- The paper
- Shaw, A. K., Halpern, A. L., Beeson, K., Tran, B., Venter, J. C., & Martiny, J. B. H. (2008). It's all relative: ranking the diversity of aquatic bacterial communities. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01626.x
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.