Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16957211›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2006

Integrated analysis of established and novel microbial and chemical methods for microbial source tracking.

Anicet R Blanch, Lluís Belanche-Muñoz, Xavier Bonjoch, James Ebdon, Christophe Gantzer, Francisco Lucena, Jakob Ottoson, Christos Kourtis, Aina Iversen, Inger Kühn and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
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 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 183 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Pathogen-Phage Geomapping to Overcome Resistance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Repeated Isolation of Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase-PositiveAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Antimicrobial-ResistantJournal of environmental and public health · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Anicet R BlanchDepartment of Microbiology, University of Barcelona, Avda. Diagonal 645, Barcelona, Spain. ablanch@ub.edu
Lluís Belanche-Muñoz
Xavier Bonjoch
James Ebdon
Christophe Gantzer
Francisco Lucena
Jakob Ottoson
Christos Kourtis
Aina Iversen
Inger Kühn
Laura Mocé
Maite Muniesa
Janine Schwartzbrod
Sylvain Skraber
Georgios T Papageorgiou
Huw Taylor
Jessica Wallis
Joan Jofre
Universitat de Barcelona · ESUniversité de Lorraine · FRUniversity of Brighton · GBKarolinska Institutet · SENicosia General Hospital · CYSwedish Institute · SEUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several microbes and chemicals have been considered as potential tracers to identify fecal sources in the environment. However, to date, no one approach has been shown to accurately identify the origins of fecal pollution in aquatic environments. In this multilaboratory study, different microbial and chemical indicators were analyzed in order to distinguish human fecal sources from nonhuman fecal sources using wastewaters and slurries from diverse geographical areas within Europe. Twenty-six parameters, which were later combined to form derived variables for statistical analyses, were obtained by performing methods that were achievable in all the participant laboratories: enumeration of fecal coliform bacteria, enterococci, clostridia, somatic coliphages, F-specific RNA phages, bacteriophages infecting Bacteroides fragilis RYC2056 and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron GA17, and total and sorbitol-fermenting bifidobacteria; genotyping of F-specific RNA phages; biochemical phenotyping of fecal coliform bacteria and enterococci using miniaturized tests; specific detection of Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Bifidobacterium dentium; and measurement of four fecal sterols. A number of potentially useful source indicators were detected (bacteriophages infecting B. thetaiotaomicron, certain genotypes of F-specific bacteriophages, sorbitol-fermenting bifidobacteria, 24-ethylcoprostanol, and epycoprostanol), although no one source identifier alone provided 100% correct classification of the fecal source. Subsequently, 38 variables (both single and derived) were defined from the measured microbial and chemical parameters in order to find the best subset of variables to develop predictive models using the lowest possible number of measured parameters. To this end, several statistical or machine learning methods were evaluated and provided two successful predictive models based on just two variables, giving 100% correct classification: the ratio of the densities of somatic coliphages and phages infecting Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron to the density of somatic coliphages and the ratio of the densities of fecal coliform bacteria and phages infecting Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron to the density of fecal coliform bacteria. Other models with high rates of correct classification were developed, but in these cases, higher numbers of variables were required.

Indexed as

Microbiological TechniquesWater MicrobiologyAnimalsArtificial IntelligenceBacteriophagesEnterobacteriaceaeEnterococcusEuropeFecesHumansPhenotypeSterolsSterols

Identifiers

PMID16957211
PMCPMC1563622
OpenAlexW2161058659

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.