ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2007
Evaluation of two DNA template preparation methods for post-immunomagnetic separation detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in foods and beverages by PCR.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public health risks associated with food-borne parasites.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2018Article
- An overview of methods/techniques for the detection of Cryptosporidium in food samples.Parasitology research · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts were recovered by immunomagnetic separation from six artificially contaminated foods. Two DNA isolation methods were subsequently evaluated by PCR. The FTA Concentrator-PS filter provided rapid and reproducible detection, although variability increased at lower inoculum levels (88% and 15% detection in high- and low-inoculum-level samples, respectively). Total DNA extraction generated consistent results at all oocyst levels but resulted in longer analysis time (100% and 59% detection in high- and low-inoculum-level samples, respectively). Also reflected in this study was that the matrix played an important role in the ability to recover oocysts, as sample turbidity, pH, and PCR inhibitors all influenced detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.