ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2009
Estimation of pig fecal contamination in a river catchment by real-time PCR using two pig-specific Bacteroidales 16S rRNA genetic markers.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
67 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Have genetic targets for faecal pollution diagnostics and source tracking revolutionized water quality analysis yet?FEMS microbiology reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Household determinants of animal and human fecal contamination on floors and hands in northwestern coastal Ecuador.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Characterizing fecal bioaerosols in dairy barns using microbial source tracking markers and bovine enteric viruses.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Microbial source tracking of human and animal fecal contamination in Ecuadorian households.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Optimizing Digital PCR Assays for Multiplexed Microbial Source Tracking in Surface Waters.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Microbial source tracking of human and animal fecal contamination in Ecuadorian households.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Swine production intensity and swine-specific fecal contamination of household surfaces at residences of industrial livestock operation workers and community residents, North Carolina, USA.The Science of the total environment · 2025Article
- Beyond borders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human-specific faecal markers across geographical settings.Critical reviews in environmental science and technology · 2025Review
- Distribution of host-specific Bacteriodales marker genes in water sources of selected rural areas of Vhembe District, South Africa.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Grey and harbor seals in France (mainland and Saint-Pierre et Miquelon): microbial communities and identification of a microbial source tracking seal marker.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Assessing the Occurrence of Host-Specific Faecal Indicator Markers in Water Systems as a Function of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Practices: A Case Study in Rural Communities of Vhembe District Municipality, South Africa.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Host-AssociatedMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- An overview of molecular markers for identification of non-human fecal pollution sources.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Genetic fecal source identification in urban streams impacted by municipal separate storm sewer system discharges.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Interlaboratory performance and quantitative PCR data acceptance metrics for NIST SRM® 2917.Water research · 2022Article
- Wastewater-based epidemiology in countries with poor wastewater treatment - Epidemiological indicator function of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in surface waters.The Science of the total environment · 2022Article
- Microbial Source Tracking as a Method of Determination of Beach Sand Contamination.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Performance of NIST SRM® 2917 with 13 recreational water quality monitoring qPCR assays.Water research · 2022Article
- Diversity and abundance of antibiotic resistance genes and their relationship with nutrients and land use of the inflow rivers of Taihu Lake.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The microbiological quality of coastal or river water can be affected by fecal contamination from human or animal sources. To discriminate pig fecal pollution from other pollution, a library-independent microbial source tracking method targeting Bacteroidales host-specific 16S rRNA gene markers by real-time PCR was designed. Two pig-specific Bacteroidales markers (Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac) were designed using 16S rRNA gene Bacteroidales clone libraries from pig feces and slurry. For these two pig markers, 98 to 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity were obtained when tested by TaqMan real-time PCR. A decrease in the concentrations of Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac markers was observed throughout the slurry treatment chain. The two newly designed pig-specific Bacteroidales markers, plus the human-specific (HF183) and ruminant-specific (BacR) Bacteroidales markers, were then applied to river water samples (n = 24) representing 14 different sites from the French Daoulas River catchment (Brittany, France). Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac were quantified in 25% and 62.5%, respectively, of samples collected around pig farms, with concentrations ranging from 3.6 to 4.1 log10 copies per 100 ml of water. They were detected in water samples collected downstream from pig farms but never detected near cattle farms. HF183 was quantified in 90% of water samples collected downstream near Daoulas town, with concentrations ranging between 3.6 and 4.4 log10 copies per 100 ml of water, and BacR in all water samples collected around cattle farms, with concentrations ranging between 4.6 and 6.0 log10 copies per 100 ml of water. The results of this study highlight that pig fecal contamination was not as frequent as human or bovine fecal contamination and that fecal pollution generally came from multiple origins. The two pig-specific Bacteroidales markers can be applied to environmental water samples to detect pig fecal pollution.
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.