The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding microbial community dynamics to improve optimal microbiome selection
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Recalcitrant polymers are widely distributed in the environment. This includes natural polymers, such as chitin, but synthetic polymers are becoming increasingly abundant, for which biodegradation is uncertain. Distribution of labour in microbial communities commonly evolves in nature, particularly for arduous processes, suggesting a community may be better at degrading recalcitrant compounds than individual microorganisms. Artificial selection of microbial communities with better degradation potential has seduced scientists for over a decade, but the method has not been systematically optimised nor applied to polymer degradation. Using chitin as a case study, we successfully selected for microbial communities with enhanced chitinase activities but found that continuous optimisation of incubation times between selective generations was of utmost importance. The analysis of the community composition over the entire selection process revealed fundamental aspects in microbial ecology: when incubation times between generations were optimal, the system was dominated by Gammaproteobacteria , main bearers of chitinase enzymes and drivers of chitin degradation, before being succeeded by cheating, cross-feeding and grazing organisms. Importance Artificial selection is a powerful and atractive technique that can enhance the biodegradation of a recalcitrant polymer and other pollutants by microbial communities. We show, for the first time, that the success of artificially selecting microbial communities requires an optimisation of the incubation times between generations when implementing this method. Hence, communities need to be transferred at the peak of the desired activity in order to avoid community drift and replacement of the efficient biodegrading community by cheaters, cross-feeders and grazers.
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
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes
Kanehisa, M. (2000) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.27 · Cited by 37,077
DADA2: High–resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data
Callahan, B. J., McMurdie, P. J., Rosen, M. J., Han, A. W., Johnson, A. J. A., & Holmes, S. P. (2016) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.3869 · Cited by 35,698
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Caporaso, J. G., Kuczynski, J., Stombaugh, J., Bittinger, K., Bushman, F. D., Costello, E. K., Fierer, N., Peña, A. G., Goodrich, J. K., Gordon, J. I., et al. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · Cited by 34,887
The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools
Quast, C., Pruesse, E., Yilmaz, P., Gerken, J., Schweer, T., Yarza, P., Peplies, J., & Glöckner, F. O. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks1219 · Cited by 33,055
KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes
Ogata, H., Goto, S., Sato, K., Fujibuchi, W., Bono, H., & Kanehisa, M. (1999) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/27.1.29 · Cited by 31,232
phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data
McMurdie, P. J., & Holmes, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 · Cited by 21,322
Schloss, P. D., Westcott, S. L., Ryabin, T., Hall, J. R., Hartmann, M., Hollister, E. B., Lesniewski, R. A., Oakley, B. B., Parks, D. H., Robinson, C. J., et al. (2009) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01541-09 · Cited by 19,549
APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language
Paradis, E., Claude, J., & Strimmer, K. (2004) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412 · Cited by 11,335
Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA Gene Database and Workbench Compatible with ARB
DeSantis, T. Z., Hugenholtz, P., Larsen, N., Rojas, M., Brodie, E. L., Keller, K., Huber, T., Dalevi, D., Hu, P., & Andersen, G. L. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.03006-05 · Cited by 10,891
Cited by
Marine Plastic Debris: A New Surface for Microbial Colonization
Wright, R. J., Erni-Cassola, G., Zadjelovic, V., Latva, M., & Christie-Oleza, J. A. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c02305 · Cited by 513
Self-citationMicro-by-micro interactions: How microorganisms influence the fate of marine microplastics
Rogers, K. L., Carreres‐Calabuig, J. A., Gorokhova, E., & Posth, N. R. (2020) · Limnology and Oceanography Letters · doi:10.1002/lol2.10136 · Cited by 293
Microbial associations for bioremediation. What does “microbial consortia” mean?
Massot, F., Bernard, N., Alvarez, L. M. M., Martorell, M. M., Mac Cormack, W. P., & Ruberto, L. A. M. (2022) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-022-11864-8 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Wright, R. J., Gibson, M. I., & Christie-Oleza, J. A.
- Venue
- Microbiome
- Published
- 2019-06-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85-85
- ISSN
- 2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2948050975
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 111
- FWCI
- 23.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Understanding microbial community dynamics to improve optimal microbiome selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40168-019-0702-x
- The paper
- Wright, R. J., Gibson, M. I., & Christie-Oleza, J. A. (2019). Understanding microbial community dynamics to improve optimal microbiome selection. Microbiome. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-019-0702-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.
