Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27239228›Full record

ArticleGut pathogens2016

Inherent bacterial DNA contamination of extraction and sequencing reagents may affect interpretation of microbiota in low bacterial biomass samples.

Angela Glassing, Scot E Dowd, Susan Galandiuk, Brian Davis, Rodrick J Chiodini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut pathogens, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 315 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
315citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

315 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Phylum Fusobacteriota Is Associated with Colorectal Cancer-Specific Mortality: Results from the Translational Research Program in Cancer Differences across Populations.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

255 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Angela GlassingDepartment of Biological and Physical Sciences, Montana State University-Billings, 1500 University Drive, Billings, MT 59101 USA.
Scot E DowdMolecular Research Laboratory (Mr. DNA), Shallowater, TX USA.
Susan GalandiukHiram C. Polk, Jr. MD Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY USA.
Brian DavisDepartment of Surgery, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX USA.
Rodrick J ChiodiniSt. Vincent Healthcare, Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Billings, MT USA ; Department of Biological and Physical Sciences, Montana State University-Billings, 1500 University Drive, Billings, MT 59101 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0580-7500

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe advent and use of highly sensitive molecular biology techniques to explore the microbiota and microbiome in environmental and tissue samples have detected the presence of contaminating microbial DNA within reagents. These microbial DNA contaminants may distort taxonomic distributions and relative frequencies in microbial datasets, as well as contribute to erroneous interpretations and identifications.

resultsWe herein report on the occurrence of bacterial DNA contamination within commonly used DNA extraction kits and PCR reagents and the effect of these contaminates on data interpretation. When compared to previous reports, we identified an additional 88 bacterial genera as potential contaminants of molecular biology grade reagents, bringing the total number of known contaminating microbes to 181 genera. Many of the contaminants detected are considered normal inhabitants of the human gastrointestinal tract and the environment and are often indistinguishable from those genuinely present in the sample.

conclusionsLaboratories working on bacterial populations need to define contaminants present in all extraction kits and reagents used in the processing of DNA. Any unusual and/or unexpected findings need to be viewed as possible contamination as opposed to unique findings.

Indexed as

16S sequencingContaminationInflammatory bowel diseaseMetagenomicsMicrobiotaPCR

Identifiers

PMID27239228
PMCPMC4882852

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.