Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25412499›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Influencing factors and applicability of the viability EMA-qPCR for a detection and quantification of Campylobacter cells from water samples.

Diana Seinige, Maren von Köckritz-Blickwede, Carsten Krischek, Günter Klein, Corinna Kehrenberg

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Veterinary sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Advances in detection methods for viable Salmonella spp.: current applications and challenges.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Diana SeinigeInstitute of Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Maren von Köckritz-BlickwedeInstitute for Physiological Chemistry, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Carsten KrischekInstitute of Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Günter KleinInstitute of Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Corinna KehrenbergInstitute of Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, increasing numbers of human campylobacteriosis cases caused by contaminated water have been reported. As the culture-based detection of Campylobacter is time consuming and can yield false-negative results, the suitability of a quantitative real-time PCR method in combination with an ethidium monoazide pretreatment of samples (EMA-qPCR) for the rapid, quantitative detection of viable Campylobacter cells from water samples was investigated. EMA-qPCR has been shown to be a promising rapid method for the detection of viable Campylobacter spp. from food samples. Application of membrane filtration and centrifugation, two methods frequently used for the isolation of bacteria from water, revealed a mean loss of up to 1.08 log10 cells/ml from spiked samples. Both methods used alone lead to a loss of dead bacteria and accumulation of viable bacteria in the sample as shown by fluorescence microscopy. After filtration of samples, no significant differences could be detected in subsequent qPCR experiments with and without EMA pretreatment compared to culture-based enumeration. High correlations (R(2)= 0.942 without EMA, R(2) = 0.893 with EMA) were obtained. After centrifugation of samples, qPCR results overestimated Campylobacter counts, whereas results from both EMA-qPCR and the reference method were comparable. As up to 81.59% of nonviable cells were detected in pond water, EMA-qPCR failed to detect correct quantities of viable cells. However, analyses of spiked tap water samples revealed a high correlation (R(2) = 0.863) between results from EMA-qPCR and the reference method. After membrane filtration, EMA-qPCR was successfully applied to Campylobacter field isolates, and results indicated an advantage over qPCR by analysing defined mixtures of viable and nonviable cells. In conclusion, EMA-qPCR is a suitable method to detect viable Campylobacter from water samples, but the isolation technique and the type/quality of the water sample impact the results.

Indexed as

AzidesBacterial LoadCampylobacterCentrifugationDNA, BacterialFiltrationFresh WaterMicrobial ViabilityMicroscopy, FluorescenceReal-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction8-azidoethidiumAzidesDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID25412499
PMCPMC4239115
OpenAlexW2046397271

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.