Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19633126›Full record

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.

Regina Lamendella, Jorge W Santo Domingo, Anthony C Yannarell, Shreya Ghosh, George Di Giovanni, Roderick I Mackie, Daniel B Oerther

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Persistence and Decay of Fecal Microbiota in Aquatic Habitats.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2019
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Regina LamendellaDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 452211, USA.
Jorge W Santo Domingo
Anthony C Yannarell
Shreya Ghosh
George Di Giovanni
Roderick I Mackie
Daniel B Oerther
University of Cincinnati · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · US

Funding

Bacterial Diversity as a BioMarker of Soil HealthR01ES015448 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI OERTHER, DANIEL BARTON · 2006 to 2008
$934k
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES015448
6 · The paper itself

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

BiodiversityAnimalsBacteroidetesCluster AnalysisDNA, BacterialDNA PrimersDNA, RibosomalEnvironmental MicrobiologyFecesGenes, BacterialMolecular Sequence DataPhylogenyPolymerase Chain ReactionPrevotellaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, BacterialDNA PrimersDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID19633126
PMCPMC2747877
OpenAlexW2008927058

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.