ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2009
Evaluation of swine-specific PCR assays used for fecal source tracking and analysis of molecular diversity of swine-specific "bacteroidales" populations.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- An overview of molecular markers for identification of non-human fecal pollution sources.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- The Use of Ribosomal RNA as a Microbial Source Tracking Target Highlights the Assay Host-Specificity Requirement in Water Quality Assessments.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Persistence and Decay of Fecal Microbiota in Aquatic Habitats.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2019Review
- PCR data and comparative performance ofData in brief · 2018Article
- Assessment of bacterial and archaeal community structure in Swine wastewater treatment processes.Microbial ecology · 2015Article
- Source tracking swine fecal waste in surface water proximal to swine concentrated animal feeding operations.The Science of the total environment · 2015Article
- Performance characteristics of qPCR assays targeting human- and ruminant-associated bacteroidetes for microbial source tracking across sixteen countries on six continents.Environmental science & technology · 2013Article
- Monitoring the perturbation of soil and groundwater microbial communities due to pig production activities.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2013Article
- Tracking the primary sources of fecal pollution in a tropical watershed in a one-year study.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2013Article
- Molecular diversity of Bacteroidales in fecal and environmental samples and swine-associated subpopulations.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2013Article
- Development and evaluation of a quantitative PCR assay targeting sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) fecal pollution.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2012Article
- Comparison of gull feces-specific assays targeting the 16S rRNA genes of Catellicoccus marimammalium and Streptococcus spp.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2012Article
- Comparative fecal metagenomics unveils unique functional capacity of the swine gut.BMC microbiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the specificity, distribution, and sensitivity of Prevotella strain-based (PF163 and PigBac1) and methanogen-based (P23-2) PCR assays proposed to detect swine fecal pollution in environmental waters. The assays were tested against 222 fecal DNA extracts derived from target and nontarget animal hosts and against 34 groundwater and 15 surface water samples from five different sites. We also investigated the phylogenetic diversity of 1,340 "Bacteroidales" 16S rRNA gene sequences derived from swine feces, swine waste lagoons, swine manure pits, and waters adjacent to swine operations. Most swine fecal samples were positive for the host-specific Prevotella-based PCR assays (80 to 87%), while fewer were positive with the methanogen-targeted PCR assay (53%). Similarly, the Prevotella markers were detected more frequently than the methanogen-targeted assay markers in waters historically impacted with swine fecal contamination. However, the PF163 PCR assay cross-reacted with 23% of nontarget fecal DNA extracts, although Bayesian statistics suggested that it yielded the highest probability of detecting pig fecal contamination in a given water sample. Phylogenetic analyses revealed previously unknown swine-associated clades comprised of clones from geographically diverse swine sources and from water samples adjacent to swine operations that are not targeted by the Prevotella assays. While deeper sequencing coverage might be necessary to better understand the molecular diversity of fecal Bacteroidales species, results of sequence analyses supported the presence of swine fecal pollution in the studied watersheds. Overall, due to nontarget cross amplification and poor geographic stability of currently available host-specific PCR assays, development of additional assays is necessary to accurately detect sources of swine 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.