ArticlePloS one2015
Impact of Bioreactor Environment and Recovery Method on the Profile of Bacterial Populations from Water Distribution Systems.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Deprivation of dietary fiber enhances susceptibility of mice to cryptosporidiosis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Article
- Glucocorticosteroids and ciclosporin do not significantly impact canine cutaneous microbiota.BMC veterinary research · 2018Article
- Role of Wall Shear Stress in Cryptosporidium parvum Oocyst Attachment to Environmental Biofilms.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2017Article
- Pseudo-Second-Order Calcium-Mediated Cryptosporidium parvum Oocyst Attachment to Environmental Biofilms.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple rotating annular reactors were seeded with biofilms flushed from water distribution systems to assess (1) whether biofilms grown in bioreactors are representative of biofilms flushed from the water distribution system in terms of bacterial composition and diversity, and (2) whether the biofilm sampling method affects the population profile of the attached bacterial community. Biofilms were grown in bioreactors until thickness stabilized (9 to 11 weeks) and harvested from reactor coupons by sonication, stomaching, bead-beating, and manual scraping. High-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons was used to profile bacterial populations from flushed biofilms seeded into bioreactors as well as biofilms recovered from bioreactor coupons by different methods. β diversity between flushed and reactor biofilms was compared to β diversity between (i) biofilms harvested from different reactors and (ii) biofilms harvested by different methods from the same reactor. These analyses showed that average diversity between flushed and bioreactor biofilms was double the diversity between biofilms from different reactors operated in parallel. The diversity between bioreactors was larger than the diversity associated with different biofilm recovery methods. Compared to other experimental variables, the method used to recover biofilms had a negligible impact on the outcome of water biofilm analyses based on 16S amplicon sequencing. Results from this study show that biofilms grown in reactors over 9 to 11 weeks are not representative models of the microbial populations flushed from a distribution system. Furthermore, the bacterial population profile of biofilms grown in replicate reactors from the same flushed water are likely to diverge. However, four common sampling protocols, which differ with respect to disruption of bacterial cells, provide similar information with respect to the 16S rRNA population profile of the biofilm community.
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.