The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Long-Read Sequencing Unlocks New Insights into the Amphidinium carterae Microbiome
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.3390/md22080342 · Paper page
Abstract
Dinoflagellates are one of the largest groups of marine microalgae and exhibit diverse trophic strategies. Within these niches, dinoflagellates can produce secondary metabolites that are known to be toxic, which can lead to ecologically harmful blooms. Amphidinium carterae is one species of dinoflagellate that produces toxic compounds and is used as a model for dinoflagellate studies. The extent to which the microbiome surrounding A. carterae affects its growth and secondary metabolite synthesis is still being assessed, as well as the impact of bacterial data on sequencing and assembly. An antibiotic cocktail was previously shown to eliminate 16S amplification from the dinoflagellate culture. Even with drastically reduced bacterial numbers, bacterial populations are likely to be present. In this experiment we used novel Nanopore long-read sequencing techniques on A. carterae cultures to assemble 15 full bacterial genomes ranging from 2.9-6.0 Mb and found that the use of antibiotics decreased the percentage of reads mapping back to bacteria. We also identified shifts in the microbiome composition and identified a potentially deleterious bacterial species arising in the absence of the antibiotic-treatment. Multiple antibiotic-resistance genes were identified, as well as evidence that the bacterial population do not contribute to toxic secondary metabolite synthesis.
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
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 86 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Judd, M., Wira, J., Place, A. R., & Bachvaroff, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bachvaroff, Tsvetan
- Venue
- Marine Drugs
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-06-25
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 342-342
- ISSN
- 1660-3397 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11355691
- OpenAlex
- W4401079375
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 86
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Marine Drugs (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1228778, 0821258, 1726023, 0821311, 1920079)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore County (DMS-0821311, CNS-0821258, OAC-1726023, CNS-1228778)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Protist diversity and phylogeny
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- Amphidinium carterae, dinoflagellate-bacteria interactions, bacterial genome assembly, antibiotic therapy, secondary metabolite biosynthesis, harmful algal blooms, dinoflagellate growth
- MeSH terms
- Anti-Bacterial Agents, Bacteria, Dinoflagellida, Genome, Bacterial, 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