Verification record
Every claim in this article was checked against the abstracts of the papers it cites, by a separate pass that was given those abstracts and nothing else. A claim marked supported carries the sentence that supports it, quoted verbatim below.
- References
- 14
- Claims checked
- 6
- Fully supported
- 6
- Checked on
- Oct 28, 2026
Claim by claim
Two independently generated 16S rRNA datasets from Otobius megnini collected in Querétaro and Comarca Lagunera both contained Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium and Coxiella-like organisms.
SupportedLaboratory studyLaboratory study. Shown under laboratory conditions, not in the field.
“Both datasets showed recurrent bacterial taxa, including Staphylococcus , Corynebacterium , and Coxiella -like organisms.”
The abstract confirms that both independently generated 16S rRNA datasets from O. megnini collected in Querétaro and Comarca Lagunera shared these recurrent taxa.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 28, 2026
Observed feature richness was lower and Pielou's evenness higher in the Comarca Lagunera dataset than in the Querétaro dataset, while Shannon diversity did not differ.
SupportedLaboratory studyLaboratory study. Shown under laboratory conditions, not in the field.
“Pielou’s evenness was higher and observed feature richness was lower in Comarca Lagunera than in Querétaro (Kruskal–Wallis: both p = 0.0001), whereas Shannon diversity did not differ ( p = 0.888)”
The claim accurately reports the comparative diversity metrics observed between the Comarca Lagunera and Querétaro datasets.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 28, 2026
The Bray-Curtis PERMANOVA was significant, but multivariate dispersion also differed, so the authors state the result cannot be interpreted as an unambiguous difference in group centroids.
SupportedLaboratory studyLaboratory study. Shown under laboratory conditions, not in the field.
“The Bray–Curtis permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) was significant ( p = 0.0001), but multivariate dispersion also differed (betadisper ANOVA: F = 10.61, p = 0.0001). Therefore, the PERMANOVA result cannot be interpreted as an unambiguous difference in group centroids.”
The source explicitly states that because multivariate dispersion also differed, the significant Bray–Curtis PERMANOVA result cannot be interpreted as an unambiguous difference in group centroids.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 28, 2026
The authors report that dataset identity was confounded with tissue type, 16S region, host replication, life stage, feeding status and laboratory processing, so observed differences cannot be attributed to geography.
SupportedLaboratory studyLaboratory study. Shown under laboratory conditions, not in the field.
“Because dataset identity was confounded with tissue type, 16S region, host replication, life stage, feeding status, and laboratory processing, the observed differences cannot be attributed to geography.”
The claim directly reflects the conclusion stated verbatim in the abstract.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 28, 2026
PICRUSt2 predicted pathways shared across both datasets included central carbon metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis and cofactor metabolism; the authors describe these results as hypothesis-generating.
SupportedLaboratory studyLaboratory study. Shown under laboratory conditions, not in the field.
“PICRUSt2 predicted pathways shared across the datasets, including those related to central carbon metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, and cofactor metabolism. Conclusions These results provide a descriptive baseline for two independently generated O. megnini microbiome datasets. Because dataset identity was confounded with tissue type, 16S region, host replication, life stage, feeding status, and laboratory processing, the observed differences cannot be attributed to geography. The network and PICRUSt2 results are hypothesis-generating”
The abstract confirms that PICRUSt2 predicted shared pathways including central carbon metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, and cofactor metabolism, and explicitly notes that these results are hypothesis-generating.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 28, 2026
In a separate hard-tick system, infection with the symbiont Midichloria mitochondrii was associated with increased acquisition of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato by Ixodes ricinus larvae.
SupportedField trialField trial
“The infection with M. mitochondrii but not tick sex increased the acquisition of B. burgdorferi ( s.l. ) by I. ricinus larvae feeding on naturally infected birds.”
The abstract directly confirms that infection with M. mitochondrii increased the acquisition of B. burgdorferi (sensu lato) by I. ricinus larvae.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 28, 2026
What this does and does not prove
It proves that every DOI cited resolves to a real registered work whose returned DOI matches the one requested, that none of them is retracted, and that each claim has a named sentence in a cited abstract behind it.
It does not prove that the paper as a whole supports the claim. An abstract can overstate its own findings, and a sentence can be read out of context. That is why the quote is printed here rather than summarised: if the check is wrong, you can see that it is wrong.
Evidence grading is automatic and conservative. Anything it cannot classify is marked unclassified rather than flattered upward.