Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21764965›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2011

Rapid concentration and molecular enrichment approach for sensitive detection of Escherichia coli and Shigella species in potable water samples.

Andrée F Maheux, Luc Bissonnette, Maurice Boissinot, Jean-Luc T Bernier, Vicky Huppé, François J Picard, Éve Bérubé, Michel G Bergeron

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation 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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Separation of Escherichia coli from natural samples for identification of sources and microcosm inoculation.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2020
    Article
  7. A novel method for rapid and sensitive detection of viable Escherichia coli cells using UV-induced PMA-coupled quantitative PCR.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. On-line monitoring of Escherichia coli in raw water at Oset drinking water treatment plant, Oslo (Norway).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015
    Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Andrée F MaheuxCentre de Recherche en Infectiologie de l'Université Laval, Centre de Recherche du CHUQ, 2705 Laurier Blvd., Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Luc Bissonnette
Maurice Boissinot
Jean-Luc T Bernier
Vicky Huppé
François J Picard
Éve Bérubé
Michel G Bergeron

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research PA-15586
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this work, we used a rapid, simple, and efficient concentration-and-recovery procedure combined with a DNA enrichment method (dubbed CRENAME [concentration and recovery of microbial particles, extraction of nucleic acids, and molecular enrichment]), that we coupled to an Escherichia coli/Shigella-specific real-time PCR (rtPCR) assay targeting the tuf gene, to sensitively detect E. coli/Shigella in water. This integrated method was compared to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) culture-based Method 1604 on MI agar in terms of analytical specificity, ubiquity, detection limit, and rapidity. None of the 179 non-E. coli/Shigella strains tested was detected by both methods, with the exception of Escherichia fergusonii, which was detected by the CRENAME procedure combined with the E. coli/Shigella-specific rtPCR assay (CRENAME + E. coli rtPCR). DNA from all 90 E. coli/Shigella strains tested was amplified by the CRENAME + E. coli rtPCR, whereas the MI agar method had limited ubiquity and detected only 65 (72.2%) of the 90 strains tested. In less than 5 h, the CRENAME + E. coli rtPCR method detected 1.8 E. coli/Shigella CFU whereas the MI agar method detected 1.2 CFU/100 ml of water in 24 h (95% confidence). Consequently, the CRENAME method provides an easy and efficient approach to detect as little as one Gram-negative E. coli/Shigella cell present in a 100-ml potable water sample. Coupled with an E. coli/Shigella-specific rtPCR assay, the entire molecular procedure is comparable to U.S. EPA Method 1604 on MI agar in terms of analytical specificity and detection limit but provides significant advantages in terms of speed and ubiquity.

Indexed as

Water MicrobiologyBacteriological TechniquesEscherichia coliPeptide Elongation Factor TuReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityShigellaTime FactorsPeptide Elongation Factor Tu

Identifiers

PMID21764965
PMCPMC3165386

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.