ArticleJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2008
Indicators for photoreactivation and dark repair studies following ultraviolet disinfection.
Article in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- UV-C side-emitting optical fiber-based disinfection: a promising approach for infection control in tight channels.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Ultraviolet C inactivation of Coxiella burnetii for production of a structurally preserved whole cell vaccine antigen.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial efficacy and inactivation kinetics of a novel LED-based UV-irradiation technology.The Journal of hospital infection · 2023Article
- Investigation on Potential ESKAPE Surrogates for 222 and 254 nm Irradiation Experiments.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Sensitivity of Bacteria, Protozoa, Viruses, and Other Microorganisms to Ultraviolet Radiation.Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2021Article
- UV-C inactivation of Legionella rubrilucens.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2017Article
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
Repair of DNA in bacteria following ultraviolet (UV) disinfection can cause reactivation of inactivated bacteria and negatively impact the efficiency of the UV disinfection process. In this study, various strains of E. coli (wild-type, UV-resistant and antibiotic-resistant strains) were investigated for their ability to perform dark repair and photoreactivation, and compared based on final repair levels after 4 h of incubation, as well as repair rates. Analysis of the results revealed that the repair abilities of different E. coli strains can differ quite significantly. In photoreactivation, the log repair ranged from 10 to 85%, with slightly lower log repair percentages when medium-pressure (MP) UV disinfection was employed. In dark repair, log repair ranged from 13 to 28% following low-pressure (LP) UV disinfection. E. coli strains ATCC 15597 and ATCC 11229 were found to repair the fastest and to the highest levels for photoreactivation and dark repair, respectively. These strains were also confirmed to repair to higher levels when compared to a pathogenic E. coli O157:H7 strain. Hence, these strains could possibly serve as conservative indicators for future repair studies following UV disinfection. In addition, dimer repair by photoreactivation and dark repair was also confirmed on a molecular level using the endonuclease sensitive site (ESS) assay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18228066What 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.