ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2010
Molecular indicators used in the development of predictive models for microbial source tracking.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Origin of fecal contamination in lettuce and strawberries: From microbial indicators, molecular markers, andHeliyon · 2024Article
- Source tracking of fecal contamination in Asian green mussels (Journal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology · 2024Article
- An overview of molecular markers for identification of non-human fecal pollution sources.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Characterization of Stormwater Runoff Based on Microbial Source Tracking Methods.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Shared bacterial communities between soil, stored drinking water, and hands in rural Bangladeshi households.Water research X · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Human- and Animal-Specific Viral Markers and Application of CrAssphage, Pepper Mild Mottle Virus, and Tobacco Mosaic Virus as Potential Fecal Pollution Markers to River Water in Japan.Food and environmental virology · 2019Article
- PCR data and comparative performance ofData in brief · 2018Article
- Maxent estimation of aquaticPeerJ · 2018Article
- Detection of human fecal contamination by nifH gene quantification of marine waters in the coastal beaches of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2016Article
- Differential decomposition of bacterial and viral fecal indicators in common human pollution types.Water research · 2016Article
- Incorporating expert judgments in utility evaluation of bacteroidales qPCR assays for microbial source tracking in a drinking water source.Environmental science & technology · 2015Article
- Biotic interactions and sunlight affect persistence of fecal indicator bacteria and microbial source tracking genetic markers in the upper Mississippi river.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2014Article
- Molecular Approach to Microbiological Examination of Water Quality in the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) in Mississippi, USA.Environmental health insights · 2013Article
- Performance of two quantitative PCR methods for microbial source tracking of human sewage and implications for microbial risk assessment in recreational waters.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2012Article
- Relevance of Bacteroidales and F-specific RNA bacteriophages for efficient fecal contamination tracking at the level of a catchment in France.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2012Article
- New molecular quantitative PCR assay for detection of host-specific Bifidobacteriaceae suitable for microbial source tracking.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2012Article
- Bifidobacterial diversity and the development of new microbial source tracking indicators.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2011Article
- Persistence of Bacteroides species populations in a river as measured by molecular and culture techniques.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2010Article
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
A number of chemical, microbial, and eukaryotic indicators have been proposed as indicators of fecal pollution sources in water bodies. No single one of the indicators tested to date has been able to determine the source of fecal pollution in water. However, the combined use of different indicators has been demonstrated to be the best way of defining predictive models suitable for determining fecal pollution sources. Molecular methods are promising tools that could complement standard microbiological water analysis. In this study, the feasibility of some proposed molecular indicators for microbial source tracking (MST) was compared (names of markers are in parentheses): host-specific Bacteroidetes (HF134, HF183, CF128, and CF193), Bifidobacterium adolescentis (ADO), Bifidobacterium dentium (DEN), the gene esp of Enterococcus faecium, and host-specific mitochondrial DNA associated with humans, cattle, and pigs (Humito, Bomito, and Pomito, respectively). None of the individual molecular markers tested enabled 100% source identification. They should be combined with other markers to raise sensitivity and specificity and increase the number of sources that are identified. MST predictive models using only these molecular markers were developed. The models were evaluated by considering the lowest number of molecular indicators needed to obtain the highest rate of identification of fecal sources. The combined use of three molecular markers (ADO, Bomito, and Pomito) enabled correct identification of 75.7% of the samples, with differentiation between human, swine, bovine, and poultry sources. Discrimination between human and nonhuman fecal pollution was possible using two markers: ADO and Pomito (84.6% correct identification). The percentage of correct identification increased with the number of markers analyzed. The best predictive model for distinguishing human from nonhuman fecal sources was based on 5 molecular markers (HF134, ADO, DEN, Bomito, and Pomito) and provided 90.1% correct classification.
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.