Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24657854›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2014

Enzyme treatment reverse transcription-PCR to differentiate infectious and inactivated F-specific RNA phages.

Yongheng Yang, Mansel W Griffiths

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Survey of Analytical Techniques for Noroviruses.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yongheng YangCanadian Research Institute for Food Safety, Department of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Mansel W Griffiths
University of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

F-specific (F+) RNA phages are recommended as indicators of fecal contamination and the presence of enteric viruses and as viral surrogates to elucidate the resistance of viruses to adverse conditions or to assess the effectiveness of inactivating processes. Reverse transcription (RT)-PCR methods have been used to detect, quantify, or identify subgroups of F+ RNA phages. However, these methods may overestimate the infectivity of F+ RNA phages in test samples, since the presence of both infectious and inactivated phages (or naked RNA) can lead to positive RT-PCR signals. In this study, we evaluated the ability of an enzyme treatment (ET) with proteinase K and RNase A prior to RNA extraction, followed by RT-PCR, to differentiate infectious and inactivated F+ RNA phages. The results indicated that ET RT-PCR reduced, but did not completely eliminate, false-positive signals encountered with RT-PCR alone. The two-step ET RT-PCR, in which the enzymes were added sequentially, was more effective at reducing false-positive signals than the one-step ET RT-PCR, which involved addition of both enzymes together. Despite its inability to completely eliminate false-positive signals, ET RT-PCR gave more reliable information on the infectivity of F+ RNA phages. Thus, the method is better than RT-PCR alone for detecting F+ RNA phages as indicators to assess the risk of fecal contamination by enteric pathogens or to evaluate the effectiveness of virus-inactivating processes.

Indexed as

Microbial ViabilityEndopeptidase KReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRibonuclease, PancreaticRNA PhagesSensitivity and SpecificityVirologyEndopeptidase KRibonuclease, Pancreatic

Identifiers

PMID24657854
PMCPMC4018871
OpenAlexW2135678592

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.