Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23481604›Full record

ArticlemBio2013

When is a microbial culture "pure"? Persistent cryptic contaminant escapes detection even with deep genome sequencing.

Pravin Malla Shrestha, Kelly P Nevin, Minita Shrestha, Derek R Lovley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mBio, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. PEPR: pipelines for evaluating prokaryotic references.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2016
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pravin Malla ShresthaDepartment of Microbiology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA. pravin@microbio.umass.edu
Kelly P Nevin
Minita Shrestha
Derek R Lovley
University of Massachusetts Amherst · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledGeobacter sulfurreducens strain KN400 was recovered in previous studies in which a culture of the DL1 strain of G. sulfurreducens served as the inoculum in investigations of microbial current production at low anode potentials (-400 mV versus Ag/AgCl). Differences in the genome sequences of KN400 and DL1 were too great to have arisen from adaptive evolution during growth on the anode. Previous deep sequencing (80-fold coverage) of the DL1 culture failed to detect sequences specific to KN400, suggesting that KN400 was an external contaminant inadvertently introduced into the anode culturing system. In order to evaluate this further, a portion of the gene for OmcS, a c-type cytochrome that both KN400 and DL1 possess, was amplified from the DL1 culture. HiSeq-2000 Illumina sequencing of the PCR product detected the KN400 sequence, which differs from the DL1 sequence at 14 bp, at a frequency of ca. 1 in 10(5) copies of the DL1 sequence. A similar low frequency of KN400 was detected with quantitative PCR of a KN400-specific gene. KN400 persisted at this frequency after intensive restreaking of isolated colonies from the DL1 culture. However, a culture in which KN400 could no longer be detected was obtained by serial dilution to extinction in liquid medium. The KN400-free culture could not grow on an anode poised at -400 mV. Thus, KN400 cryptically persisted in the culture dominated by DL1 for more than a decade, undetected by even deep whole-genome sequencing, and was only fortuitously uncovered by the unnatural selection pressure of growth on a low-potential electrode. IMPORTANCE: Repeated streaking of isolated colonies on solidified medium remains a common strategy for obtaining pure cultures, especially of difficult-to-cultivate microorganisms such as strict anaerobes. The results presented here demonstrate that verifying the purity of cultures obtained in this manner may be difficult because extremely rare variants can persist, undetectable with even deep genomic DNA sequencing. The only way to ensure that a culture is pure is to cultivate it from an initial single cell, which may be technically difficult for many environmentally significant microbes.

Indexed as

Microbial InteractionsCoinfectionElectrodesGenes, BacterialGenotypeGeobacterHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPolymerase Chain Reaction

Identifiers

PMID23481604
PMCPMC3604776
OpenAlexW2165655922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.