Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26172943›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Removal of Contaminant DNA by Combined UV-EMA Treatment Allows Low Copy Number Detection of Clinically Relevant Bacteria Using Pan-Bacterial Real-Time PCR.

Bruce Humphrey, Neil McLeod, Carrie Turner, J Mark Sutton, Paul M Dark, Geoffrey Warhurst

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Increasing Reproducibility in Oral Microbiome Research.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Best practices for performance of real-time PCR assays in veterinary diagnostic laboratories.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. mSphere · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bruce HumphreyInstitute of Inflammation and Repair, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Infection, Injury & inflammation Research Group, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom.
Neil McLeodPublic Health England, Microbiology Services Division, Porton Down, Salisbury, United Kingdom.
Carrie TurnerPublic Health England, Microbiology Services Division, Porton Down, Salisbury, United Kingdom.
J Mark SuttonPublic Health England, Microbiology Services Division, Porton Down, Salisbury, United Kingdom.
Paul M DarkInstitute of Inflammation and Repair, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Infection, Injury & inflammation Research Group, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom.
Geoffrey WarhurstInstitute of Inflammation and Repair, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Infection, Injury & inflammation Research Group, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom.
Public Health England · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than two decades after its discovery, contaminant microbial DNA in PCR reagents continues to impact the sensitivity and integrity of broad-range PCR diagnostic techniques. This is particularly relevant to their use in the setting of human sepsis, where a successful diagnostic on blood samples needs to combine universal bacterial detection with sensitivity to 1-2 genome copies, because low levels of a broad range of bacteria are implicated.

resultsWe investigated the efficacy of ethidium monoazide (EMA) and propidium monoazide (PMA) treatment as emerging methods for the decontamination of PCR reagents. Both treatments were able to inactivate contaminating microbial DNA but only at concentrations that considerably affected assay sensitivity. Increasing amplicon length improved EMA/PMA decontamination efficiency but at the cost of assay sensitivity. The same was true for UV exposure as an alternative decontamination strategy, likely due to damage sustained by oligonucleotide primers which were a significant source of contamination. However, a simple combination strategy with UV-treated PCR reagents paired with EMA-treated primers produced an assay capable of two genome copy detection and a <5% contamination rate. This decontamination strategy could have important utility in developing improved pan-bacterial assays for rapid diagnosis of low pathogen burden conditions such as in the blood of patients with suspected blood stream infection.

Indexed as

AzidesDecontaminationDNA, BacterialDNA ContaminationDNA PrimersGene DosageHumansIndicators and ReagentsMolecular Sequence DataPropidiumReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityUltraviolet Rays8-azidoethidiumAzidesDNA, BacterialDNA PrimersIndicators and ReagentsPropidiumpropidium monoazide

Identifiers

PMID26172943
PMCPMC4501569
OpenAlexW1674005835

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.