Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27129965›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2016

Overlap of Spoilage-Associated Microbiota between Meat and the Meat Processing Environment in Small-Scale and Large-Scale Retail Distributions.

Giuseppina Stellato, Antonietta La Storia, Francesca De Filippis, Giorgia Borriello, Francesco Villani, Danilo Ercolini

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 182 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Heliyon · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Giuseppina StellatoDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Division of Microbiology, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Italy.
Antonietta La StoriaDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Division of Microbiology, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Italy.
Francesca De FilippisDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Division of Microbiology, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Italy.
Giorgia BorrielloDepartment of Animal Health, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Portici, Italy.
Francesco VillaniDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Division of Microbiology, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Italy.
Danilo ErcoliniDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Division of Microbiology, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Italy ercolini@unina.it.
University of Naples Federico II · ITIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledMicrobial contamination in food processing plants can play a fundamental role in food quality and safety. The aims of this study were to learn more about the possible influence of the meat processing environment on initial fresh meat contamination and to investigate the differences between small-scale retail distribution (SD) and large-scale retail distribution (LD) facilities. Samples were collected from butcheries (n = 20), including LD (n = 10) and SD (n = 10) facilities, over two sampling campaigns. Samples included fresh beef and pork cuts and swab samples from the knife, the chopping board, and the butcher's hand. The microbiota of both meat samples and environmental swabs were very complex, including more than 800 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) collapsed at the species level. The 16S rRNA sequencing analysis showed that core microbiota were shared by 80% of the samples and included Pseudomonas spp., Streptococcus spp., Brochothrix spp., Psychrobacter spp., and Acinetobacter spp. Hierarchical clustering of the samples based on the microbiota showed a certain separation between meat and environmental samples, with higher levels of Proteobacteria in meat. In particular, levels of Pseudomonas and several Enterobacteriaceae members were significantly higher in meat samples, while Brochothrix, Staphylococcus, lactic acid bacteria, and Psychrobacter prevailed in environmental swab samples. Consistent clustering was also observed when metabolic activities were considered by predictive metagenomic analysis of the samples. An increase in carbohydrate metabolism was predicted for the environmental swabs and was consistently linked to Firmicutes, while increases in pathways related to amino acid and lipid metabolism were predicted for the meat samples and were positively correlated with Proteobacteria Our results highlighted the importance of the processing environment in contributing to the initial microbial levels of meat and clearly showed that the type of retail facility (LD or SD) did not apparently affect the contamination. IMPORTANCE: The study provides an in-depth description of the microbiota of meat and meat processing environments. It highlights the importance of the environment as a contamination source of spoilage bacteria, and it shows that the size of the retail facility does not affect the level and type of contamination.

Indexed as

BiotaEnvironmental MicrobiologyFood-Processing IndustryBacteriaCluster AnalysisDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalFood ContaminationMeatRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNADNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID27129965
PMCPMC4907188
OpenAlexW2426354668

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.