ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2013
Microarray testing for the presence of toxic algae monitoring programme in Galicia (NW Spain).
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A high resolution melting method for the molecular identification of the potentially toxic diatom Pseudo-nitzschia spp. in the Mediterranean Sea.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Molecular Techniques for the Detection of Organisms in Aquatic Environments, with Emphasis on Harmful Algal Bloom Species.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Experimental Protocol for Detecting Cyanobacteria in Liquid and Solid Samples with an Antibody Microarray Chip.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2017Article
- Interspecific Competition Study Between Pseudochattonella farcimen and P. verruculosa (Dictyochophyceae)-Two Ichthyotoxic Species that Co-occur in Scandinavian Waters.Microbial ecology · 2017Article
- Occurrence of lipophilic marine toxins in shellfish from Galicia (NW of Spain) and synergies among them.Marine drugs · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid and reliable detection of harmful algae in coastal areas and shellfish farms is an important requirement of monitoring programmes. Monitoring of toxic algae by means of traditional methods, i.e., light microscopy, can be time consuming when many samples have to be routinely analysed. Reliable species identification requires expensive equipment and trained personnel to carry out the analyses. However, all techniques for the monitoring of harmful algae usually require transportation of samples to specialised laboratories. In many monitoring laboratories, results are usually obtained within five working days after receiving the sample and therefore preventative measures are not always possible. Molecular technologies are rapidly improving the detection of phytoplankton and their toxins and the speed at which the results can be obtained. Assays are based on the discrimination of the genetic differences of the different species and species-specific probes can be designed. Such probes have been adapted to a microarray or phylochip format and assessed in several EU monitoring sites. Microarray results are presented for 1 year of field samples validated with cell counts from concentrated samples taken during toxic events from the weekly sampling of the Galician Monitoring Programme done by INTECMAR. The Galician monitoring laboratory does their own counting and their results are posted on their web site within 24 h. There was good correlation between cells present and microarray signals. In the few cases of false negatives, these can be attributed to poor RNA extraction of the target species, viz. Prorocentrum or Dinophysis. Where potential false positives were encountered, the smaller volume taken for cell counts as compared to the upto 300 times more volume taken for RNA extraction for the microarray is likely the cause for these differences, making the microarray more sensitive. The microarray was able to provide better species resolution in Alexandrium and Pseudo-nitzschia. In all cases, the toxins recovered by the toxin array were matched by target species in the array or in the cell counts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23660802What 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.