ArticleBMC research notes2012
Proposal for a method to estimate nutrient shock effects in bacteria.
Article in BMC research notes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- An enhanced domestication method for uncultured bacteria.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Nutrient Availability and Pathogen Clearance Impact Microbiome Composition in a Gnotobiotic Kimchi Model.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Genetic engineering of low-temperature polyhydroxyalkanoate production by Acidovorax sp. A1169, a psychrophile isolated from a subglacial outflow.Extremophiles : life under extreme conditions · 2023Article
- Diluted conventional media improve the microbial cultivability from aquarium seawater.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2019Article
- Low-frequency electromagnetic fields as an alternative to sanitize water of drinking systems in poultry production?PloS one · 2019Article
- A method for culturing Gram-negative skin microbiota.BMC microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlating methods are still the golden standard in microbiology; however, some studies have shown that these techniques can underestimate the microbial concentrations and diversity. A nutrient shock is one of the mechanisms proposed to explain this phenomenon. In this study, a tentative method to assess nutrient shock effects was tested.
findingsTo estimate the extent of nutrient shock effects, two strains isolated from tap water (Sphingomonas capsulata and Methylobacterium sp.) and two culture collection strains (E. coli CECT 434 and Pseudomonas fluorescens ATCC 13525) were exposed both to low and high nutrient conditions for different times and then placed in low nutrient medium (R2A) and rich nutrient medium (TSA).The average improvement (A.I.) of recovery between R2A and TSA for the different times was calculated to more simply assess the difference obtained in culturability between each medium. As expected, A.I. was higher when cells were plated after the exposition to water than when they were recovered from high-nutrient medium showing the existence of a nutrient shock for the diverse bacteria used. S. capsulata was the species most affected by this phenomenon.
conclusionsThis work provides a method to consistently determine the extent of nutrient shock effects on different microorganisms and hence quantify the ability of each species to deal with sudden increases in substrate concentration.
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.