ArticleScientific reports2016
Evaluation of five microbial and four mitochondrial DNA markers for tracking human and pig fecal pollution in freshwater.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Swine production intensity and swine-specific fecal contamination of household surfaces at residences of industrial livestock operation workers and community residents, North Carolina, USA.The Science of the total environment · 2025Article
- Longitudinal fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, pepper mild mottle virus, and human mitochondrial DNA in COVID-19 patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Host-AssociatedMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- An overview of molecular markers for identification of non-human fecal pollution sources.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Elevated Fecal Mitochondrial DNA from Symptomatic Norovirus Infections Suggests Potential Health Relevance of Human Mitochondrial DNA in Fecal Source Tracking.Environmental science & technology letters · 2022Article
- The Use of Ribosomal RNA as a Microbial Source Tracking Target Highlights the Assay Host-Specificity Requirement in Water Quality Assessments.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Synergistic Application of Molecular Markers and Community-Based Microbial Source Tracking Methods for Identification of Fecal Pollution in River Water During Dry and Wet Seasons.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Persistence of emerging viral fecal indicators in large-scale freshwater mesocosms.Water research X · 2020Article
- Validation of microbial source tracking markers for the attribution of fecal contamination in indoor-household environments of the Peruvian Amazon.The Science of the total environment · 2020Article
- A novel droplet digital PCR human mtDNA assay for fecal source tracking.Water research · 2020Article
- Level of contamination in the feces of several species at major inland pollution sources in the drainage basin of Yeoja Bay, Republic of Korea.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2020Article
- Detection and occurrence of indicator organisms and pathogens.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2019Review
- Quantification of Microbial Source Tracking and Pathogenic Bacterial Markers in Water and Sediments of Tiaoxi River (Taihu Watershed).Frontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- Global Distribution of Human-Associated Fecal Genetic Markers in Reference Samples from Six Continents.Environmental science & technology · 2018Article
- A case study characterizing animal fecal sources in surface water using a mitochondrial DNA marker.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study systematically evaluated five microbial and four mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) markers, including sensitivities and specificities under PCR method, and fecal concentrations and decay rates in water under qPCR method. The microbial DNA markers were the three human-associated (BacH, HF183 and B.adolescentis) and two pig-associated (Pig-2-Bac and L.amylovorus), while the mtDNA ones were two human- (H-ND6 and H-ND5) and two pig-associated (P-CytB and P-ND5). All the mtDNA markers showed higher sensitivity (100%) than the microbial ones (84.0-88.8%) except Pig-2-Bac (100%). Specificities of the human mtDNA markers (99.1 and 98.1%) were higher than those of the human-associated microbial ones (57.0-88.8%). But this pattern was not observed in the pig-associated markers where Pig-2-Bac had 100% specificity. The reliability of H-ND6 and H-ND5 was further evidenced to identify locations of the most polluted within the Taihu Lake watershed of China. In general, the microbial DNA markers demonstrated a higher fecal concentration than the mtDNA ones; increasing temperature and sunlight exposure accelerated significantly the decay of all the DNA markers. Results of this study suggest that DNA markers H-ND6, H-ND5, and Pig-2-Bac may be among the best for fecal source tracking in water.
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.