ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2010
Concentrations, viability, and distribution of Cryptosporidium genotypes in lagoons of swine facilities in the Southern Piedmont and in coastal plain watersheds of Georgia.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2022Review
- Diversity of Cryptosporidium spp. in Apodemus spp. in Europe.European journal of protistology · 2019Article
- Article
- Review
- Occurrence of Cryptosporidium suis and Cryptosporidium scrofarum on commercial swine farms in the Czech Republic and its associations with age and husbandry practices.Parasitology research · 2013Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Waste lagoons of swine operations are a source of Cryptosporidium oocysts. Few studies, however, have reported on oocyst concentrations in swine waste lagoons; none have reported on oocyst viability status, nor has there been a systematic assessment of species/genotype distributions across different types of swine facilities. Ten swine waste lagoons associated with farrowing, nursery, finishing, and gestation operations were each sampled once a month for a year. Oocysts were extracted from triplicate 900-ml effluent samples, enumerated by microscopy, and assessed for viability by dye exclusion/vital stain assay. DNA was extracted from processed samples, and 18S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) genes were amplified by PCR and sequenced for species and genotype identification. Oocysts were observed at each sampling time at each lagoon. Annual mean concentrations of total oocysts and viable oocysts ranged between 24 and 51 and between 0.6 and 12 oocysts ml(-1) effluent, respectively. The species and genotype distributions were dominated (95 to 100%) by Cryptosporidium suis and Cryptosporidium pig genotype II, the latter of which was found at eight of the lagoons. The lagoon at the gestation facility was dominated by Cryptosporidium muris (90%), and one farrowing facility showed a mix of pig genotypes, Cryptosporidium muris, and various genotypes of C. parvum. The zoonotic C. parvum bovine genotype was observed five times out of 407 18S rDNA sequences analyzed. Our results indicate that pigs can have mixed Cryptosporidium infections, but infection with C. suis is likely to be dominant.
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.