Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24505398›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

"Limits of control"--crucial parameters for a reliable quantification of viable campylobacter by real-time PCR.

Nora-Johanna Krüger, Christiane Buhler, Azuka N Iwobi, Ingrid Huber, Lüppo Ellerbroek, Bernd Appel, Kerstin Stingl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Genomic insights and survival dynamics ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparative Analysis of Quantitative Methods forFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  7. Ecology ofBiofilm · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Chicken Skin Decontamination of ThermotolerantPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  11. Transmission pathways ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Underestimated Survival ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. New Approaches on Quantification ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2017
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nora-Johanna KrügerNational Reference Laboratory for Campylobacter, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Christiane BuhlerNational Reference Laboratory for Campylobacter, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Azuka N IwobiBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Ingrid HuberBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Lüppo EllerbroekNational Reference Laboratory for Campylobacter, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Bernd AppelNational Reference Laboratory for Campylobacter, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Kerstin StinglNational Reference Laboratory for Campylobacter, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unsuitability of the "CFU" parameter and the usefulness of cultivation-independent quantification of Campylobacter on chicken products, reflecting the actual risk for infection, is increasingly becoming obvious. Recently, real-time PCR methods in combination with the use of DNA intercalators, which block DNA amplification from dead bacteria, have seen wide application. However, much confusion exists in the correct interpretation of such assays. Campylobacter is confronted by oxidative and cold stress outside the intestine. Hence, damage caused by oxidative stress probably represents the most frequent natural death of Campylobacter on food products. Treatment of Campylobacter with peroxide led to complete loss of CFU and to significant entry of any tested DNA intercalator, indicating disruption of membrane integrity. When we transiently altered the metabolic state of Campylobacter by abolishing the proton-motive force or by inhibiting active efflux, CFU was constant but enhanced entry of ethidium bromide (EtBr) was observed. Consistently, ethidium monoazide (EMA) also entered viable Campylobacter, in particular when nutrients for bacterial energization were lacking (in PBS) or when the cells were less metabolically active (in stationary phase). In contrast, propidium iodide (PI) and propidium monoazide (PMA) were excluded from viable bacterial cells, irrespective of their metabolic state. As expected for a diffusion-limited process, the extent of signal reduction from dead cells depended on the temperature, incubation time and concentration of the dyes during staining, prior to crosslinking. Consistently, free protein and/or DNA present in varying amounts in the heterogeneous matrix lowered the concentration of the DNA dyes at the bacterial membrane and led to considerable variation of the residual signal from dead cells. In conclusion, we propose an improved approach, taking into account principles of method variability and recommend the implementation of process sample controls for reliable quantification of intact and potentially infectious units (IPIU) of Campylobacter by real-time PCR.

Indexed as

AnimalsAzidesCampylobacterChickensColony Count, MicrobialDNA, BacterialMicrobial ViabilityPoultryPropidiumProton-Motive ForceReal-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction8-azidoethidiumAzidesDNA, BacterialPropidiumpropidium monoazide

Identifiers

PMID24505398
PMCPMC3914927
OpenAlexW1988883347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.