ArticlePloS one2015
Rapid microbial sample preparation from blood using a novel concentration device.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Isolating viable bacteria from positive blood cultures: impedance cytometry analysis.Biomedical microdevices · 2026Article
- Development of two multiplex PCR assays for rapid detection of eleven Gram-negative bacteria in children with septicemia.Tropical medicine and health · 2024Article
- Rapid Phenotypic Antibiotics Susceptibility Analysis by a 3D Printed Prototype.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- The SSS revolution in fungal diagnostics: speed, simplicity and sensitivity.British medical bulletin · 2023Article
- Molecular Methodologies for Improved Polymicrobial Sepsis Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Molecular Diagnosis of Yeast Infections.Current fungal infection reports · 2021Review
- Improving the recovery and detection of bloodstream pathogens from blood culture.Journal of medical microbiology · 2020Article
- 3D-Printed Modular Microfluidic Device Enabling Preconcentrating Bacteria and Purifying Bacterial DNA in Blood for Improving the Sensitivity of Molecular Diagnostics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Isolation of intact bacteria from blood by selective cell lysis in a microfluidic porous silica monolith.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2019Article
- A Rapid and Low-Cost Pathogen Detection Platform by Using a Molecular Agglutination Assay.ACS central science · 2018Article
- A "Culture" Shift: Broad Bacterial Detection, Identification, and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Directly from Whole Blood.Clinical chemistry · 2018Article
- Nanoparticles for Signaling in Biodiagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Rapid Filter-Based Detection and Culture of Burkholderia pseudomallei from Small Volumes of Urine.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Rapid phenotypic stress-based microfluidic antibiotic susceptibility testing of Gram-negative clinical isolates.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Microfluidic advances in phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing.Biomedical microdevices · 2016Article
- Rapid Detection of Bacteria from Blood with Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy.Analytical chemistry · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Appropriate care for bacteremic patients is dictated by the amount of time needed for an accurate diagnosis. However, the concentration of microbes in the blood is extremely low in these patients (1-100 CFU/mL), traditionally requiring growth (blood culture) or amplification (e.g., PCR) for detection. Current culture-based methods can take a minimum of two days, while faster methods like PCR require a sample free of inhibitors (i.e., blood components). Though commercial kits exist for the removal of blood from these samples, they typically capture only DNA, thereby necessitating the use of blood culture for antimicrobial testing. Here, we report a novel, scaled-up sample preparation protocol carried out in a new microbial concentration device. The process can efficiently lyse 10 mL of bacteremic blood while maintaining the microorganisms' viability, giving a 30-μL final output volume. A suite of six microorganisms (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Haemophilus influenzae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans) at a range of clinically relevant concentrations was tested. All of the microorganisms had recoveries greater than 55% at the highest tested concentration of 100 CFU/mL, with three of them having over 70% recovery. At the lowest tested concentration of 3 CFU/mL, two microorganisms had recoveries of ca. 40-50% while the other four gave recoveries greater than 70%. Using a Taqman assay for methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA)to prove the feasibility of downstream analysis, we show that our microbial pellets are clean enough for PCR amplification. PCR testing of 56 spiked-positive and negative samples gave a specificity of 0.97 and a sensitivity of 0.96, showing that our sample preparation protocol holds great promise for the rapid diagnosis of bacteremia directly from a primary sample.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.