High-throughput molecular technologies for unraveling the mystery of soil microbial community: challenges and future prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil microbial communities play a crucial role in soil fertility, sustainability, and plant health. However, intensive agriculture with increasing chemical inputs and changing environments have influenced native soil microbial communities. Approaches have been developed to study the structure, diversity, and activity of soil microbes to better understand the biology and plant-microbe interactions in soils. Unfortunately, a good understanding of soil microbial community remains a challenge due to the complexity of community composition, interactions of the soil environment, and limitations of technologies, especially related to the functionality of some taxa rarely detected using conventional techniques. Culture-based methods have been shown unable and sometimes are biased for assessing soil microbial communities. To gain further knowledge, culture-independent methods relying on direct analysis of nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids are worth exploring. In recent years, metagenomics, metaproteomics, metatranscriptomics, and proteogenomics have been increasingly used in studying microbial ecology. In this review, we examined the importance of microbial community to soil quality, the mystery of rhizosphere and plant-microbe interactions, and the biodiversity and multi-trophic interactions that influence the soil structure and functionality. The impact of the cropping system and climate change on the soil microbial community was also explored. Importantly, progresses in molecular biology, especially in the development of high-throughput biotechnological tools, were extensively assessed for potential uses to decipher the diversity and dynamics of soil microbial communities, with the highlighted advantages/limitations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".