Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16751492›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2006

Comparison of methods of extracting Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis DNA from environmental substrates and quantification of organisms by using a general internal procedural control.

M M Klerks, A H C van Bruggen, C Zijlstra, M Donnikov

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M M KlerksPlant Research International BV, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands. Michel.Klerks@wur.nl.
A H C van Bruggen
C Zijlstra
M Donnikov
Wageningen University & Research · NLEngelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper compares five commercially available DNA extraction methods with respect to DNA extraction efficiency of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis from soil, manure, and compost and uses an Escherichia coli strain harboring a plasmid expressing green fluorescent protein as a general internal procedural control. Inclusion of this general internal procedural control permitted more accurate quantification of extraction and amplification of S. enterica serovar Enteritidis in these samples and reduced the possibility of false negatives. With this protocol it was found that the optimal extraction method differed for soil (Mobio soil DNA extraction kit), manure (Bio101 soil DNA extraction kit), and compost (Mobio fecal DNA extraction kit). With each method, as little as 1.2 x 10(3) to 1.8 x 10(3) CFU of added serovar Enteritidis per 100 mg of substrate could be detected by direct DNA extraction and subsequent S. enterica-specific TaqMan PCR. After bacterial enrichment, as little as 1 CFU/100 mg of original substrate was detected. Finally, the study presents a more accurate molecular analysis for quantification of serovar Enteritidis initially present in soil or manure using DNA extraction and TaqMan PCR.

Indexed as

Soil MicrobiologyAnimalsDNA, BacterialEnvironmental MonitoringGene AmplificationManureSalmonella enteritidisSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, BacterialManure

Identifiers

PMID16751492
PMCPMC1489602
OpenAlexW2136824872

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.