Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21092338›Full record

ArticleInvestigative genetics2010

Identifying experimental surrogates for Bacillus anthracis spores: a review.

David L Greenberg, Joseph D Busch, Paul Keim, David M Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Persistence in time: the hunt forApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. CharacterizingEnvironmental science : water research & technology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Anthrax revisited: how assessing the unpredictable can improve biosecurity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Biological Validation of a Chemical Effluent Decontamination System.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

David L GreenbergCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4073, USA. Dave.Wagner@nau.edu.
Joseph D Busch
Paul Keim
David M Wagner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax, is a proven biological weapon. In order to study this threat, a number of experimental surrogates have been used over the past 70 years. However, not all surrogates are appropriate for B. anthracis, especially when investigating transport, fate and survival. Although B. atrophaeus has been widely used as a B. anthracis surrogate, the two species do not always behave identically in transport and survival models. Therefore, we devised a scheme to identify a more appropriate surrogate for B. anthracis. Our selection criteria included risk of use (pathogenicity), phylogenetic relationship, morphology and comparative survivability when challenged with biocides. Although our knowledge of certain parameters remains incomplete, especially with regards to comparisons of spore longevity under natural conditions, we found that B. thuringiensis provided the best overall fit as a non-pathogenic surrogate for B. anthracis. Thus, we suggest focusing on this surrogate in future experiments of spore fate and transport modelling.

Identifiers

PMID21092338
PMCPMC2988482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.