ArticlePloS one2015
Molecular Tools for Monitoring the Ecological Sustainability of a Stone Bio-Consolidation Treatment at the Royal Chapel, Granada.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of cyanobacterial communities in gypsum outcrops: insights from sites in Israel and Poland.Extremophiles : life under extreme conditions · 2024Article
- Bioconsolidation of Damaged Construction Calcarenites and Evaluation of the Improvement in Their Petrophysical and Mechanical Properties.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundBiomineralization processes have recently been applied in situ to protect and consolidate decayed ornamental stone of the Royal Chapel in Granada (Spain). While this promising method has demonstrated its efficacy regarding strengthening of the stone, little is known about its ecological sustainability. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsHere, we report molecular monitoring of the stone-autochthonous microbiota before and at 5, 12 and 30 months after the bio-consolidation treatment (medium/long-term monitoring), employing the well-known molecular strategy of DGGE analyses. Before the bio-consolidation treatment, the bacterial diversity showed the exclusive dominance of Actinobacteria (100%), which decreased in the community (44.2%) after 5 months, and Gamma-proteobacteria (30.24%) and Chloroflexi (25.56%) appeared. After 12 months, Gamma-proteobacteria vanished from the community and Cyanobacteria (22.1%) appeared and remained dominant after thirty months, when the microbiota consisted of Actinobacteria (42.2%) and Cyanobacteria (57.8%) only. Fungal diversity showed that the Ascomycota phylum was dominant before treatment (100%), while, after five months, Basidiomycota (6.38%) appeared on the stone, and vanished again after twelve months. Thirty months after the treatment, the fungal population started to stabilize and Ascomycota dominated on the stone (83.33%) once again. Members of green algae (Chlorophyta, Viridiplantae) appeared on the stone at 5, 12 and 30 months after the treatment and accounted for 4.25%, 84.77% and 16.77%, respectively.
conclusionsThe results clearly show that, although a temporary shift in the bacterial and fungal diversity was observed during the first five months, most probably promoted by the application of the bio-consolidation treatment, the microbiota tends to regain its initial stability in a few months. Thus, the treatment does not seem to have any negative side effects on the stone-autochthonous microbiota over that time. The molecular strategy employed here is suggested as an efficient monitoring tool to assess the impact on the stone-autochthonous microbiota of the application of biomineralization processes as a restoration/conservation procedure.
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.