Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26231650›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2015

Toolbox Approaches Using Molecular Markers and 16S rRNA Gene Amplicon Data Sets for Identification of Fecal Pollution in Surface Water.

W Ahmed, C Staley, M J Sadowsky, P Gyawali, J P S Sidhu, A Palmer, D J Beale, S Toze

Abstract read
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 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Regional Assessment of Human Fecal Contamination in Southern California Coastal Drainages.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    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

8 authors.

W AhmedCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia Faculty of Science, Health, and Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia warish.ahmed@csiro.au.
C StaleyBiotechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
M J SadowskyBiotechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
P GyawaliCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
J P S SidhuCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
A PalmerCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia.
D J BealeCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia.
S TozeCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, host-associated molecular markers and bacterial 16S rRNA gene community analysis using high-throughput sequencing were used to identify the sources of fecal pollution in environmental waters in Brisbane, Australia. A total of 92 fecal and composite wastewater samples were collected from different host groups (cat, cattle, dog, horse, human, and kangaroo), and 18 water samples were collected from six sites (BR1 to BR6) along the Brisbane River in Queensland, Australia. Bacterial communities in the fecal, wastewater, and river water samples were sequenced. Water samples were also tested for the presence of bird-associated (GFD), cattle-associated (CowM3), horse-associated, and human-associated (HF183) molecular markers, to provide multiple lines of evidence regarding the possible presence of fecal pollution associated with specific hosts. Among the 18 water samples tested, 83%, 33%, 17%, and 17% were real-time PCR positive for the GFD, HF183, CowM3, and horse markers, respectively. Among the potential sources of fecal pollution in water samples from the river, DNA sequencing tended to show relatively small contributions from wastewater treatment plants (up to 13% of sequence reads). Contributions from other animal sources were rarely detected and were very small (<3% of sequence reads). Source contributions determined via sequence analysis versus detection of molecular markers showed variable agreement. A lack of relationships among fecal indicator bacteria, host-associated molecular markers, and 16S rRNA gene community analysis data was also observed. Nonetheless, we show that bacterial community and host-associated molecular marker analyses can be combined to identify potential sources of fecal pollution in an urban river. This study is a proof of concept, and based on the results, we recommend using bacterial community analysis (where possible) along with PCR detection or quantification of host-associated molecular markers to provide information on the sources of fecal pollution in waterways.

Indexed as

Genetic MarkersWater MicrobiologyAnimalsAustraliaBirdsCattleCluster AnalysisDNA, RibosomalFecesHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHorsesHumansMolecular Sequence DataPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNADNA, RibosomalGenetic MarkersRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID26231650
PMCPMC4579440

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.