Broadscale Ecological Patterns Are Robust to Use of Exact Sequence Variants versus Operational Taxonomic Units
Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majo...
Saved in:
| Published in: | mSphere Vol. 3; no. 4 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
American Society for Microbiology
29.08.2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 2379-5042, 2379-5042 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches.
Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated (
r
> 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs.
IMPORTANCE
Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated (r > 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs. IMPORTANCE Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. ABSTRACTRecent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated (r > 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs.IMPORTANCE Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated ( r > 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs. IMPORTANCE Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated (r > 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs.IMPORTANCE Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches.Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated (r > 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs.IMPORTANCE Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. ABSTRACT Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated (r > 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs. IMPORTANCE Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated (r> 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs. Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of marker gene sequences. We sought to test if the binning approach (ESVs versus 97% OTUs) affected the ecological conclusions of a large field study. The data set included sequences targeting all bacteria (16S rRNA) and fungi (internal transcribed spacer [ITS]), across multiple environments diverging markedly in abiotic conditions, over three collection times. Despite quantitative differences in microbial richness, we found that all α and β diversity metrics were highly positively correlated ( > 0.90) between samples analyzed with both approaches. Moreover, the community composition of the dominant taxa did not vary between approaches. Consequently, statistical inferences were nearly indistinguishable. Furthermore, ESVs only moderately increased the genetic resolution of fungal and bacterial diversity (1.3 and 2.1 times OTU richness, respectively). We conclude that for broadscale (e.g., all bacteria or all fungi) α and β diversity analyses, ESV or OTU methods will often reveal similar ecological results. Thus, while there are good reasons to employ ESVs, we need not question the validity of results based on OTUs. Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies. These advances have wide-ranging implications for fields ranging from agriculture to human health. Due to limitations in databases, the majority of microbial ecology studies use a binning approach to approximate taxonomy based on DNA sequence similarity. There remains extensive debate on the best way to bin and approximate this taxonomy. Here we examine two popular approaches using a large field-based data set examining both bacteria and fungi and conclude that there are not major differences in the ecological outcomes. Thus, it appears that standard microbial community analyses are not overly sensitive to the particulars of binning approaches. |
| Author | Glassman, Sydney I. Martiny, Jennifer B. H. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Sydney I. surname: Glassman fullname: Glassman, Sydney I. organization: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California—Irvine, Irvine, California, USA, Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology, University of California—Riverside, Riverside, California, USA – sequence: 2 givenname: Jennifer B. H. surname: Martiny fullname: Martiny, Jennifer B. H. organization: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California—Irvine, Irvine, California, USA |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30021874$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1461716$$D View this record in Osti.gov |
| BookMark | eNp1kstvEzEQhy1UREvonROy4MIlxY-1vXtBKlWASpWKaMPV8npnE0cbO9jeqvz3OA-qthInjzzf_Ob5Gh354AGht5ScUcrqT-ubzRIinBFCq3pK6xfohHHVTAWp2NEj-xidprQiBZNMSiVfoWNOCKO1qk6Q_xKD6ZI1A-CZDUNYuGLjHyZniD7h8wj4Z2jHlHEOeJ4Ahx7P7o3N-AZ-j-At4F8mOuNzwncQ05jw9QaiyS74InRr7oMPa2fx3Luc3qCXvRkSnB7eCZp_nd1efJ9eXX-7vDi_mlpR8zxtmhaoACPbnvfQthIoVaYmjagJp2AEg95KwetaSiuBtUpCS4CziksheMUn6HKv2wWz0pvo1ib-0cE4vfsIcaFNzM4OoFXXk5paw5VSVU8b0xPGRcOsoJ3oeFO0Pu-1NmO7hs6Cz9EMT0Sferxb6kW405IIxitSBN7vBULKTifrMtilDd6DzZpWkioqC_TxkCWGMteU9dolC8NgPIQxaUZUWRlXjBf0wzN0FcZYpr2lypAqxcS27HePy36o99_uC0D2gI0hpQj9A0KJ3l6YPlyY3l2YLtknSD4LKc3sVl0ad8P_A_8CstfWsQ |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_soilbio_2019_05_025 crossref_primary_10_1111_geb_13837 crossref_primary_10_5194_soil_9_461_2023 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13717_024_00550_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apsoil_2022_104795 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41564_023_01514_8 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2022_905050 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_12241 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2023_1092216 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_egg_2023_100212 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_018_32987_x crossref_primary_10_1002_ecs2_70031 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0274260 crossref_primary_10_1002_ajb2_1482 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2019_07_014 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2022_796758 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41467_024_46792_w crossref_primary_10_1093_femsec_fiab165 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00248_022_02098_2 crossref_primary_10_1073_pnas_1811269115 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apsoil_2021_104140 crossref_primary_10_1080_1040841X_2021_2011833 crossref_primary_10_1002_ieam_4812 crossref_primary_10_3390_d12090324 crossref_primary_10_3390_genes12040564 crossref_primary_10_5194_bg_19_4639_2022 crossref_primary_10_1094_PHYTO_01_21_0020_R crossref_primary_10_1111_nph_16080 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0230700 crossref_primary_10_1111_gbi_12391 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13592_021_00902_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolind_2020_107168 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2019_07_268 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41522_025_00720_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_marpolbul_2023_115430 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00248_024_02480_2 crossref_primary_10_1111_geb_13266 crossref_primary_10_3389_ffunb_2022_805225 crossref_primary_10_3389_ffgc_2022_1050542 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40793_025_00705_6 crossref_primary_10_1111_ggi_70017 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_024_76513_8 crossref_primary_10_1073_pnas_2304663120 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2020_01938 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00227_021_03866_3 crossref_primary_10_1093_gigascience_giz146 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2023_1217750 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0258079 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_024_66097_8 crossref_primary_10_1111_1462_2920_16134 crossref_primary_10_3390_f14061070 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12864_024_11001_x crossref_primary_10_1007_s00248_021_01821_9 crossref_primary_10_1111_ele_14393 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_15680 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00248_022_02127_0 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms9010092 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2745_13910 crossref_primary_10_1128_mSphere_00646_21 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2020_00616 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11104_025_07605_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ibiod_2020_105133 crossref_primary_10_1128_msystems_00180_22 crossref_primary_10_1111_mec_70000 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_019_54532_0 crossref_primary_10_1002_mbo3_918 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_funeco_2021_101091 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms13081958 crossref_primary_10_1111_ele_13749 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41559_019_1084_y crossref_primary_10_1007_s00248_019_01336_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2022_156768 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2021_664407 crossref_primary_10_1111_nph_16749 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0220953 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0296407 crossref_primary_10_1002_ecs2_4702 crossref_primary_10_1128_msphere_00324_22 crossref_primary_10_3389_fevo_2024_1168288 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41467_019_11974_4 crossref_primary_10_1038_s43705_022_00129_0 crossref_primary_10_1086_729377 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms11020496 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pbi_2020_02_010 crossref_primary_10_3390_foods13132102 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_watres_2021_117638 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2023_165524 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41380_020_0652_5 crossref_primary_10_1111_1755_0998_13329 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2020_550420 crossref_primary_10_1111_1471_0528_15974 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms9020361 crossref_primary_10_3389_ffunb_2022_996574 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2019_07_053 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_45182_4 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_95146_9 crossref_primary_10_1073_pnas_1904896116 crossref_primary_10_3389_fanim_2022_889817 crossref_primary_10_3389_fevo_2020_569107 crossref_primary_10_1111_1462_2920_16513 crossref_primary_10_1002_ecs2_3967 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2021_752750 crossref_primary_10_1002_lno_12008 crossref_primary_10_1093_femsec_fiab069 crossref_primary_10_1093_gigascience_giaa022 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40104_019_0401_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jhazmat_2025_139240 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41396_019_0487_8 crossref_primary_10_1002_ajb2_1792 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00248_021_01730_x crossref_primary_10_1128_msphere_00306_20 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_018_38339_z crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2023_1266218 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_020_68952_w crossref_primary_10_1080_09670262_2024_2317803 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41559_019_1063_3 crossref_primary_10_1111_gcb_70207 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_funeco_2023_101274 crossref_primary_10_1080_02786826_2020_1723789 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0311906 crossref_primary_10_1111_mec_16628 crossref_primary_10_1002_ece3_6594 crossref_primary_10_1093_gigascience_giaa135 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2024_173367 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10096_019_03520_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envint_2018_12_038 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2021_690712 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_14321 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0309065 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolind_2020_106225 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_csbj_2020_11_049 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dsr2_2024_105391 crossref_primary_10_1002_edn3_296 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2021_533121 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms10101961 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mib_2019_09_008 crossref_primary_10_1093_beheco_arae022 crossref_primary_10_1002_ece3_5670 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0243241 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0264443 crossref_primary_10_3168_jds_2021_20939 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_91118_1 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms9081711 crossref_primary_10_1002_ajb2_16319 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foreco_2021_119277 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy14010131 crossref_primary_10_1038_s42003_024_07446_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apsoil_2020_103541 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2025_178677 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1038/nature24621 10.1038/nmeth.2604 10.1128/mBio.01809-17 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.07.005 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 10.1111/1758-2229.12523 10.1128/mSystems.00191-16 10.1128/AEM.65.12.5409-5420.1999 10.1038/ismej.2017.119 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8966-8969.2005 10.1093/nar/gkq873 10.1126/science.aap9516 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02051.x 10.1101/081257 10.3852/mycologia.98.3.436 10.1038/ismej.2017.29 10.1038/nmeth.3869 10.1128/AEM.01541-09 10.1128/aem.60.3.871-879.1994 10.1111/1755-0998.12894 10.1099/00207713-44-4-846 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01803.x 10.1038/ismej.2014.195 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | Copyright © 2018 Glassman and Martiny. Copyright © 2018 Glassman and Martiny. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. Copyright © 2018 Glassman and Martiny. 2018 Glassman and Martiny |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2018 Glassman and Martiny. – notice: Copyright © 2018 Glassman and Martiny. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: Copyright © 2018 Glassman and Martiny. 2018 Glassman and Martiny |
| CorporateAuthor | Univ. of California, Irvine, CA (United States) |
| CorporateAuthor_xml | – name: Univ. of California, Irvine, CA (United States) |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7X7 7XB 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BBNVY BENPR BHPHI CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ HCIFZ K9. LK8 M0S M7P PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 OTOTI 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1128/mSphere.00148-18 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Natural Science Collection Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central Natural Science Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central ProQuest Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student ProQuest SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Biological Sciences ProQuest Health & Medical Collection Biological Science Database ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Academic (retired) ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic OSTI.GOV PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Central Student ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central Korea Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Biological Science Collection ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Biological Science Database ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | Publicly Available Content Database CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: PIMPY name: Publicly Available Content Database url: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Biology |
| DocumentTitleAlternate | OTUs and ESVs Yield Ecologically Robust Results |
| EISSN | 2379-5042 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_7df081ca37774f19af023592c51d5d39 PMC6052340 1461716 30021874 10_1128_mSphere_00148_18 |
| Genre | Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | United States--US California |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United States--US – name: California |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: ; grantid: DEB-1457160 – fundername: ; grantid: DE-SC0016410 |
| GroupedDBID | 0R~ 53G 5VS 7X7 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAGFI AAUOK AAYXX ABUWG ADBBV ADRAZ AFFHD AFKRA AFPKN ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS BBNVY BCNDV BENPR BHPHI BPHCQ BVXVI CCPQU CITATION DIK EBS EJD FRP FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ H13 HCIFZ HMCUK HYE KQ8 LK8 M48 M7P M~E O9- OK1 PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PQGLB PQQKQ PROAC R9- RHI RPM RSF UKHRP 3V. ALIPV CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM RHF 7XB 8FK AZQEC DWQXO GNUQQ K9. PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQUKI PRINS 7X8 PUEGO OTOTI 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c583t-99be15ea6bf3febb6e117a80958031ea52efc6538866c6e2b76eb0e3243655343 |
| IEDL.DBID | DOA |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 185 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000441058200006&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 2379-5042 |
| IngestDate | Fri Oct 03 12:41:57 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 04 02:00:54 EST 2025 Fri May 19 00:47:07 EDT 2023 Thu Sep 04 15:36:05 EDT 2025 Tue Oct 07 07:01:03 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 19 02:44:34 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 21:38:11 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 03:33:40 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 4 |
| Keywords | exact sequence variants (ESVs) operational taxonomic units (OTUs) Illumina MiSeq bacteria microbial ecology fungi |
| Language | English |
| License | Copyright © 2018 Glassman and Martiny. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c583t-99be15ea6bf3febb6e117a80958031ea52efc6538866c6e2b76eb0e3243655343 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 SC0016410 USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Citation Glassman SI, Martiny JBH. 2018. Broadscale ecological patterns are robust to use of exact sequence variants versus operational taxonomic units. mSphere 3:e00148-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00148-18. |
| OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/7df081ca37774f19af023592c51d5d39 |
| PMID | 30021874 |
| PQID | 2080947259 |
| PQPubID | 2045592 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_7df081ca37774f19af023592c51d5d39 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6052340 osti_scitechconnect_1461716 proquest_miscellaneous_2072183723 proquest_journals_2080947259 pubmed_primary_30021874 crossref_primary_10_1128_mSphere_00148_18 crossref_citationtrail_10_1128_mSphere_00148_18 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-08-29 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-08-29 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 08 year: 2018 text: 2018-08-29 day: 29 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: Washington – name: 1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC |
| PublicationTitle | mSphere |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | mSphere |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| Publisher | American Society for Microbiology |
| Publisher_xml | – name: American Society for Microbiology |
| References | e_1_3_2_9_2 e_1_3_2_15_2 e_1_3_2_8_2 e_1_3_2_16_2 e_1_3_2_7_2 e_1_3_2_17_2 e_1_3_2_6_2 e_1_3_2_18_2 e_1_3_2_19_2 e_1_3_2_20_2 e_1_3_2_10_2 e_1_3_2_21_2 e_1_3_2_5_2 e_1_3_2_11_2 e_1_3_2_22_2 e_1_3_2_4_2 e_1_3_2_12_2 e_1_3_2_23_2 e_1_3_2_3_2 e_1_3_2_13_2 e_1_3_2_24_2 e_1_3_2_2_2 e_1_3_2_14_2 27214047 - Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3 10583997 - Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Dec;65(12):5409-20 19725865 - Environ Microbiol. 2010 Jan;12(1):118-23 28398348 - ISME J. 2017 Jul;11(7):1614-1629 19801464 - Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Dec;75(23):7537-41 28731476 - ISME J. 2017 Dec;11(12):2639-2643 17040072 - Mycologia. 2006 May-Jun;98(3):436-46 29348236 - Science. 2018 Jan 19;359(6373):320-325 20383131 - Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6 16332901 - Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):8966-9 29138307 - MBio. 2017 Nov 14;8(6) 29673081 - Mol Ecol Resour. 2018 Apr 19;:null 28185400 - Environ Microbiol Rep. 2017 Apr;9(2):55-70 20880993 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Dec;38(22):e200 23955772 - Nat Methods. 2013 Oct;10(10):996-8 25325381 - ISME J. 2015 Mar 17;9(4):968-79 7512808 - Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994 Mar;60(3):871-9 19021692 - Environ Microbiol. 2009 Apr;11(4):823-32 28289731 - mSystems. 2017 Mar 7;2(2) 29088705 - Nature. 2017 Nov 23;551(7681):457-463 |
| References_xml | – ident: e_1_3_2_7_2 doi: 10.1038/nature24621 – ident: e_1_3_2_5_2 doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2604 – ident: e_1_3_2_22_2 doi: 10.1128/mBio.01809-17 – ident: e_1_3_2_18_2 doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.07.005 – ident: e_1_3_2_4_2 doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 – ident: e_1_3_2_24_2 doi: 10.1111/1758-2229.12523 – ident: e_1_3_2_16_2 doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00191-16 – ident: e_1_3_2_2_2 doi: 10.1128/AEM.65.12.5409-5420.1999 – ident: e_1_3_2_13_2 doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.119 – ident: e_1_3_2_12_2 doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8966-8969.2005 – ident: e_1_3_2_3_2 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq873 – ident: e_1_3_2_8_2 doi: 10.1126/science.aap9516 – ident: e_1_3_2_11_2 doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02051.x – ident: e_1_3_2_14_2 doi: 10.1101/081257 – ident: e_1_3_2_23_2 doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.3.436 – ident: e_1_3_2_20_2 doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.29 – ident: e_1_3_2_15_2 doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 – ident: e_1_3_2_6_2 doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09 – ident: e_1_3_2_9_2 doi: 10.1128/aem.60.3.871-879.1994 – ident: e_1_3_2_19_2 doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12894 – ident: e_1_3_2_10_2 doi: 10.1099/00207713-44-4-846 – ident: e_1_3_2_17_2 doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01803.x – ident: e_1_3_2_21_2 doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.195 – reference: 17040072 - Mycologia. 2006 May-Jun;98(3):436-46 – reference: 28731476 - ISME J. 2017 Dec;11(12):2639-2643 – reference: 28289731 - mSystems. 2017 Mar 7;2(2): – reference: 29088705 - Nature. 2017 Nov 23;551(7681):457-463 – reference: 19021692 - Environ Microbiol. 2009 Apr;11(4):823-32 – reference: 29138307 - MBio. 2017 Nov 14;8(6): – reference: 23955772 - Nat Methods. 2013 Oct;10(10):996-8 – reference: 29348236 - Science. 2018 Jan 19;359(6373):320-325 – reference: 28398348 - ISME J. 2017 Jul;11(7):1614-1629 – reference: 20383131 - Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6 – reference: 19801464 - Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Dec;75(23):7537-41 – reference: 29673081 - Mol Ecol Resour. 2018 Apr 19;:null – reference: 7512808 - Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994 Mar;60(3):871-9 – reference: 28185400 - Environ Microbiol Rep. 2017 Apr;9(2):55-70 – reference: 20880993 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Dec;38(22):e200 – reference: 27214047 - Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3 – reference: 19725865 - Environ Microbiol. 2010 Jan;12(1):118-23 – reference: 16332901 - Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):8966-9 – reference: 25325381 - ISME J. 2015 Mar 17;9(4):968-79 – reference: 10583997 - Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Dec;65(12):5409-20 |
| SSID | ssj0001626676 |
| Score | 2.495294 |
| Snippet | Microbial ecologists have made exceptional improvements in our understanding of microbiomes in the last decade due to breakthroughs in sequencing technologies.... Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational... ABSTRACTRecent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational... ABSTRACT Recent discussion focuses on the best method for delineating microbial taxa, based on either exact sequence variants (ESVs) or traditional operational... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral osti proquest pubmed crossref |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
| SubjectTerms | Bacteria Bacteria - classification Bacteria - genetics BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Biota Cluster Analysis Community composition DNA, Bacterial - chemistry DNA, Bacterial - genetics DNA, Fungal - chemistry DNA, Fungal - genetics DNA, Ribosomal - chemistry DNA, Ribosomal - genetics DNA, Ribosomal Spacer - chemistry DNA, Ribosomal Spacer - genetics Ecological and Evolutionary Science Environmental Microbiology exact sequence variants (ESVs) Fungi Fungi - classification Fungi - genetics Genomes Illumina MiSeq Illumina MiSeq, bacteria, exact sequence variants (ESVs), fungi, microbial ecology, operational taxonomic units (OTUs) Metagenomics - methods microbial ecology Microbiomes Nucleotide sequence Observation operational taxonomic units (OTUs) Phylogeny RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics rRNA 16S Sequence Analysis, DNA Spacer Studies Taxonomy |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: Biological Science Database dbid: M7P link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwELaggMSF9yO0ICNx4RB1Ez9zQoC24oDKij7UW-TYE6gEybLJovLvmfF6tyxCvXCKFNuSrRmPv_GMv2HslZRCtLKUedCNzqUIPncqFLnSlSkqaIKI9VNOP5rDQ3t2Vs3ShduQ0irXNjEa6tB7uiNHJ92iJ2IQrb-Z_8ipahRFV1MJjevsBrEkiJi6N7u8Y0G0rs0mOlna_e9H9FgfKP4g0XuyW6dRJO3HT4-b61-A8--8yT8OooO7_7uEe-xOgqD87Upn7rNr0D1gt1ZFKX89ZB165i4MKDvgU7-2jXwWiTi7AccB_9w3y2HkY89PBuB9y6cXzo_8KOVl81P0wCnBhlPSx3Lgn-awSLeO_NhdrN5Cc8K7wyN2cjA9fv8hT1UZcq-sGPOqaqBQ4HTTihaaRkNRGIcrUxYNBDhVQus12lGrtddQNkZDMwEEbkIrJaR4zHa6voOnjKtCT0pnwToQ0gto7ATPAdSVIGU5CSpj-2vp1D5RllPljG91dF1KWyd51lGedWEz9nozYr6i67ii7zsS-KYfEW3HH_3iS532bW1Ci6DJO2EQJ7dF5VoiCKpKr4qggqgytkvqUiNeIdJdT9lJfiSHiniIMra31oQ62YahvlSDjL3cNOOuplCN66BfUh9D2NWUImNPVkq3maeIuMzIjJktddxayHZLd_41ModrCgLIybOrp7XLbiMsJOLyvKz22M64WMJzdtP_HM-HxYu4xX4DfDgyVg priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
| Title | Broadscale Ecological Patterns Are Robust to Use of Exact Sequence Variants versus Operational Taxonomic Units |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30021874 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2080947259 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2072183723 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1461716 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6052340 https://doaj.org/article/7df081ca37774f19af023592c51d5d39 |
| Volume | 3 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000441058200006&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 2379-5042 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0001626676 issn: 2379-5042 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20160101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 2379-5042 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0001626676 issn: 2379-5042 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20160101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Biological Science Database customDbUrl: eissn: 2379-5042 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0001626676 issn: 2379-5042 databaseCode: M7P dateStart: 20150101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/biologicalscijournals providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 2379-5042 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0001626676 issn: 2379-5042 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20150101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 2379-5042 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0001626676 issn: 2379-5042 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20150101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 2379-5042 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0001626676 issn: 2379-5042 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20150101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3di9QwEA96KvgiflvvXCL44kO5bfPZR0_2UNC13BfrU0nTKXeg7bHtyvnfO5N2l10RffGlhSaBJjOT_CaZ_IaxN1IKUctUxpUudSxF5WOnqiRWOjNJBmUlQv6Ui09mPreLRZZvpfqimLCBHngYuENT1bhqeScMApU6yVxNDC1Z6lVSqUqEq3uIeracqbC7gjhdm825ZGoPv5_SNX2gkweJfpPdWYcCXT--WjSrP0HN3yMmt5ag44fswYgd-bvhnx-xW9A8ZveGbJI_n7AGXWpXdTjowGd-PanxPDBoNh22A37Slquu533Lzzvgbc1nN873_HQMqOYX6DpTZAynaI1Vx79cw3LcLuRn7ma4xMwJqHZP2fnx7Oz9h3hMpxB7ZUUfZ1kJiQKny1rUUJYaksQ4ixjLomWDUynUXuMEaLX2GtLSaCingIhLaKWEFM_YXtM28IJxlehp6ixYB0J6AaWd4gSOQq6kTKeVitjhenALP3KNU8qLb0XwOVJbjOIogjiKxEbs7abF9cCz8Ze6RySvTT1iyA4fUG-KUW-Kf-lNxPZJ2gUCDWLL9RRW5HvyhIhAKGIHayUoRqPuCtKzTBp0GCP2elOM5khnLK6BdkV1DIFOk4qIPR90ZvOfIgAqIyNmdrRppyO7Jc3VZaD81rR7L6cv_0fP99l9RH3ESx6n2QHb65creMXu-h_9VbecsNtmYcLTTtido9k8P5kE25pQWGyO3_KPn_OvvwBJ2yml |
| linkProvider | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V1Lb9NAEB6VFAQX3g_TAosEBw5W413vwweEKKRq1TRENK3ak1mv11AJ7BA70P4pfiOzfqQEod564GTJXlt-fDP7zc74G4AXYchYFtLQT0Ui_JClxtc8DXwuIhlENklZ3T_lcChHI3V0FI1X4Ff3L4wrq-x8Yu2o08K4NXIM0hVGIhLZ-pvpd991jXLZ1a6FRgOLXXv2E0O28vXOe_y-LyndGkzebfttVwHfcMUqP4oSG3CrRZKxzCaJsEEgNV6cKwS41ZzazAj0A0oIIyxNpLBJ3yLxYIJzFjK87hVYDRHsqger45298fH5qg7GB0Iu8qFUbXzbd_IA1mU8QozX1NL8V7cJwE2B5vwvivt3peYfU9_Wrf_tpd2Gmy3JJm8bq7gDKza_C9eatptn9yDfnBU6LRGdlgxM5_3JuJYazUs8z5KPRTIvK1IV5KC0pMjI4FSbiuy3lefkUKPl5lVJXFnLvCQfpnbWrquSiT5t_vYmjtGX9-HgUh72AfTyIrePgPBA9KlWVmnLQsNsovo406E1pIiffso92OjQEJtWlN31Bvka18EZVXGLn7jGTxwoD14tzpg2giQXjN10AFuMc1Li9Y5i9jluPVMs0wxpodFMYiSQBZHOnARSRA0PUp6yyIM1B88YGZmTFTau_spULmR0SkserHfIi1vvV8bnsPPg-eIw-i2XjNK5LeZujHTsXFLmwcMG5Iv7ZDXzlKEHcgn-Sw-yfCQ_-VJrowuX5gj7jy--rWdwfXuyN4yHO6PdNbiBJNjJtPs0WodeNZvbJ3DV_KhOytnT1sAJfLps8_gN9uaQDg |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V3JbtRAEG2FsIgL-2ISoJHgwMGace8-IETIRESJhhFZlJvTbrchEtjD2APJr_F1VHmZMAjllgMnS3Z7m3lV_aqr_IqQl0JwngsmwkylKhQ8c6GVWRRKFeso9mnGm_4ph7t6PDZHR_Fkhfzqv4XBssreJzaOOisdrpFDkG4gEtHA1gd5VxYx2dx6O_0eYgcpzLT27TRaiOz4s58QvlVvtjfhv37F2NZo__2HsOswEDppeB3Gceoj6a1Kc577NFU-irSFG0kDYPdWMp87BT7BKOWUZ6lWPh16ICFcSckFh-teIVc1ipY3ZYOT8_UdiBSUXmRGmRl820OhAI-5DwGRm1maCZuGAbApwbD_RXb_rtn8YxLcuv0__3x3yK2OetN3ra3cJSu-uEeut804z-6TYmNW2qwCzHo6cv2cQCeNAGlRwXmefirTeVXTuqQHladlTken1tV0r6tHp4cW7LmoK4rFLvOKfpz6WbfaSvftafsNOEWeXz0gB5fysg_JalEW_jGhMlJDZo031nPhuE_NEOY_sJFMCDbMZEAGPTIS10m1Y8eQr0kTsjGTdFhKGiwlkQnI68UZ01am5IKxGwi2xTgUGG92lLPPSeevEp3lQBad5RrigzyKbY7CSDFzMspkxuOArCFUE-BpKDbssCrL1RhIov5SQNZ7FCadT6yScwgG5MXiMHgzTFHZwpdzHKORs2vGA_KoBfziOXnDR7UIiF4yhaUXWT5SnHxpFNMVJj_E8MnFj_Wc3ACbSHa3xztr5CYwY9RuD1m8Tlbr2dw_Jdfcj_qkmj1rLJ2S48u2jd_X0ZdN |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Broadscale+Ecological+Patterns+Are+Robust+to+Use+of+Exact+Sequence+Variants+versus+Operational+Taxonomic+Units&rft.jtitle=mSphere&rft.au=Sydney+I.+Glassman&rft.au=Jennifer+B.+H.+Martiny&rft.date=2018-08-29&rft.pub=American+Society+for+Microbiology&rft.eissn=2379-5042&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=4&rft_id=info:doi/10.1128%2FmSphere.00148-18&rft.externalDBID=DOA&rft.externalDocID=oai_doaj_org_article_7df081ca37774f19af023592c51d5d39 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2379-5042&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2379-5042&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2379-5042&client=summon |