Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21652744›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2011

Comparison of innovative molecular approaches and standard spore assays for assessment of surface cleanliness.

Moogega Cooper, Myron T La Duc, Alexander Probst, Parag Vaishampayan, Christina Stam, James N Benardini, Yvette M Piceno, Gary L Andersen, Kasthuri Venkateswaran

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Moogega CooperBiotechnology and Planetary Protection, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Mail Stop 89, Oak Grove Dr., Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.
Myron T La Duc
Alexander Probst
Parag Vaishampayan
Christina Stam
James N Benardini
Yvette M Piceno
Gary L Andersen
Kasthuri Venkateswaran

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A bacterial spore assay and a molecular DNA microarray method were compared for their ability to assess relative cleanliness in the context of bacterial abundance and diversity on spacecraft surfaces. Colony counts derived from the NASA standard spore assay were extremely low for spacecraft surfaces. However, the PhyloChip generation 3 (G3) DNA microarray resolved the genetic signatures of a highly diverse suite of microorganisms in the very same sample set. Samples completely devoid of cultivable spores were shown to harbor the DNA of more than 100 distinct microbial phylotypes. Furthermore, samples with higher numbers of cultivable spores did not necessarily give rise to a greater microbial diversity upon analysis with the DNA microarray. The findings of this study clearly demonstrated that there is not a statistically significant correlation between the cultivable spore counts obtained from a sample and the degree of bacterial diversity present. Based on these results, it can be stated that validated state-of-the-art molecular techniques, such as DNA microarrays, can be utilized in parallel with classical culture-based methods to further describe the cleanliness of spacecraft surfaces.

Indexed as

BacteriaBiological AssayColony Count, MicrobialEnvironment, ControlledMolecular TypingOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSpacecraftSpores, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID21652744
PMCPMC3147454

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.