//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
Assistant professor @ Aarhus University | ERC starting 2024 | Microbial/viral ecology | crazy cat lady | @EMG_Lyon @jemersonmicro @UCBerkeley @Firestone_lab @BanfieldLab @JedFuhrman 🇮🇱🇺🇦
Ella Sieradzki









Loading...
Came to learn about polar microbiomes and found myself at the carnaval. Gotta love #PAM2026
Soil viral ecology notice: having found myself rejecting paper after paper for the same reason, let me make this clear. If you're trying to draw conclusions about the drivers/effects of the viral community but your data is from bulk metagenomes, not viromes, that's an automatic no from me. 1/n
It's been shown repeatedly that viruses from bulk metagenomes represent at best 2-3% of the viral community found in viromes (size selection for <0.2µ pre-sequencing), and it's not even necessarily the most abundant viruses that are represented in that subsample. 2/n
This is the equivalent of making overarching statements about microbial community based on cultured microorganisms. It's just not valid. The amount of non viral DNA in a bulk metagenome is so overwhelming that no matter how deeply you sequence, you will never get a good representation. 3/n