Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25576614›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2015

Comparison of concentration methods for quantitative detection of sewage-associated viral markers in environmental waters.

W Ahmed, V J Harwood, P Gyawali, J P S Sidhu, S Toze

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 143 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Optimized Aluminum Hydroxide Adsorption-Precipitation for Improved Viral Detection in Wastewater.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 20-Month monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater of Curitiba, in Southern Brazil.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

W AhmedCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Faculty of Science, Health, and Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia warish.ahmed@csiro.au.
V J HarwoodDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
P GyawaliCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
J P S SidhuCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Faculty of Science, Health, and Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
S TozeCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
CSIRO Land and Water · AUUniversity of Queensland · AUUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pathogenic human viruses cause over half of gastroenteritis cases associated with recreational water use worldwide. They are relatively difficult to concentrate from environmental waters due to typically low concentrations and their small size. Although rapid enumeration of viruses by quantitative PCR (qPCR) has the potential to greatly improve water quality analysis and risk assessment, the upstream steps of capturing and recovering viruses from environmental water sources along with removing PCR inhibitors from extracted nucleic acids remain formidable barriers to routine use. Here, we compared the efficiency of virus recovery for three rapid methods of concentrating two microbial source tracking (MST) viral markers human adenoviruses (HAdVs) and polyomaviruses (HPyVs) from one liter tap water and river water samples on HA membranes (90 mm in diameter). Samples were spiked with raw sewage, and viral adsorption to membranes was promoted by acidification (method A) or addition of MgCl2 (methods B and C). Viral nucleic acid was extracted directly from membranes (method A), or viruses were eluted with NaOH and concentrated by centrifugal ultrafiltration (methods B and C). No inhibition of qPCR was observed for samples processed by method A, but inhibition occurred in river samples processed by B and C. Recovery efficiencies of HAdVs and HPyVs were ∼10-fold greater for method A (31 to 78%) than for methods B and C (2.4 to 12%). Further analysis of membranes from method B revealed that the majority of viruses were not eluted from the membrane, resulting in poor recovery. The modification of the originally published method A to include a larger diameter membrane and a nucleic acid extraction kit that could accommodate the membrane resulted in a rapid virus concentration method with good recovery and lack of inhibitory compounds. The frequently used strategy of viral absorption with added cations (Mg(2+)) and elution with acid were inefficient and more prone to inhibition, and will result in underestimation of the prevalence and concentrations of HAdVs and HPyVs markers in environmental waters.

Indexed as

Water MicrobiologyAdenoviruses, HumanBiomarkersHumansPolyomavirusBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID25576614
PMCPMC4345397
OpenAlexW1967339729

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.