Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10618251›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2000

Quantification of different Eubacterium spp. in human fecal samples with species-specific 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes.

A Schwiertz, G Le Blay, M Blaut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Immunometabolic Analysis ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Anaerobic degradation of flavonoids by Clostridium orbiscindens.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2003
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

A SchwiertzDeutsches Institut für Ernährungsforschung, Abteilung Gastrointestinale Mikrobiologie, 14558 Bergholz-Rehbrücke, Germany.
G Le Blay
M Blaut

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species-specific 16S rRNA-targeted, Cy3 (indocarbocyanine)-labeled oligonucleotide probes were designed and validated to quantify different Eubacterium species in human fecal samples. Probes were directed at Eubacterium barkeri, E. biforme, E. contortum, E. cylindroides (two probes), E. dolichum, E. hadrum, E. lentum, E. limosum, E. moniliforme, and E. ventriosum. The specificity of the probes was tested with the type strains and a range of common intestinal bacteria. With one exception, none of the probes showed cross-hybridization under stringent conditions. The species-specific probes were applied to fecal samples obtained from 12 healthy volunteers. E. biforme, E. cylindroides, E. hadrum, E. lentum, and E. ventriosum could be determined. All other Eubacterium species for which probes had been designed were under the detection limit of 10(7) cells g (dry weight) of feces(-1). The cell counts obtained are essentially in accordance with the literature data, which are based on colony counts. This shows that whole-cell in situ hybridization with species-specific probes is a valuable tool for the enumeration of Eubacterium species in feces.

Indexed as

Colony Count, MicrobialEubacteriumFecesHumansIn Situ HybridizationOligonucleotide ProbesPolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecies SpecificityOligonucleotide ProbesRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID10618251
PMCPMC91833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.