Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28099518›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Evaluation of Methods for the Concentration and Extraction of Viruses from Sewage in the Context of Metagenomic Sequencing.

Mathis Hjort Hjelmsø, Maria Hellmér, Xavier Fernandez-Cassi, Natàlia Timoneda, Oksana Lukjancenko, Michael Seidel, Dennis Elsässer, Frank M Aarestrup, Charlotta Löfström, Sílvia Bofill-Mas and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

3 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Mathis Hjort HjelmsøResearch Group for Genomic Epidemiology, The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9716-624X
Maria HellmérDivision of Microbiology and Production, The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Søborg, Denmark.
Xavier Fernandez-CassiLaboratory of Virus Contaminants of Water and Food, Department of Genetics, Microbiology, and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Natàlia TimonedaLaboratory of Virus Contaminants of Water and Food, Department of Genetics, Microbiology, and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Oksana LukjancenkoResearch Group for Genomic Epidemiology, The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Michael SeidelInstitute of Hydrochemistry, Chair of Analytical Chemistry, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Dennis ElsässerInstitute of Hydrochemistry, Chair of Analytical Chemistry, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Frank M AarestrupResearch Group for Genomic Epidemiology, The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Charlotta LöfströmDivision of Microbiology and Production, The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Søborg, Denmark.
Sílvia Bofill-MasLaboratory of Virus Contaminants of Water and Food, Department of Genetics, Microbiology, and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Josep F AbrilLaboratory of Virus Contaminants of Water and Food, Department of Genetics, Microbiology, and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Rosina GironesLaboratory of Virus Contaminants of Water and Food, Department of Genetics, Microbiology, and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Anna Charlotte SchultzDivision of Microbiology and Production, The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Søborg, Denmark.
Technical University of Denmark · DKUniversitat de Barcelona · ESTechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Viral sewage metagenomics is a novel field of study used for surveillance, epidemiological studies, and evaluation of waste water treatment efficiency. In raw sewage human waste is mixed with household, industrial and drainage water, and virus particles are, therefore, only found in low concentrations. This necessitates a step of sample concentration to allow for sensitive virus detection. Additionally, viruses harbor a large diversity of both surface and genome structures, which makes universal viral genomic extraction difficult. Current studies have tackled these challenges in many different ways employing a wide range of viral concentration and extraction procedures. However, there is limited knowledge of the efficacy and inherent biases associated with these methods in respect to viral sewage metagenomics, hampering the development of this field. By the use of next generation sequencing this study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of four commonly applied viral concentrations techniques (precipitation with polyethylene glycol, organic flocculation with skim milk, monolithic adsorption filtration and glass wool filtration) and extraction methods (Nucleospin RNA XS, QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit, NucliSENS® miniMAG®, or PowerViral® Environmental RNA/DNA Isolation Kit) to determine the viriome in a sewage sample. We found a significant influence of concentration and extraction protocols on the detected viriome. The viral richness was largest in samples extracted with QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit or PowerViral® Environmental RNA/DNA Isolation Kit. Highest viral specificity were found in samples concentrated by precipitation with polyethylene glycol or extracted with Nucleospin RNA XS. Detection of viral pathogens depended on the method used. These results contribute to the understanding of method associated biases, within the field of viral sewage metagenomics, making evaluation of the current literature easier and helping with the design of future studies.

Indexed as

AdenoviridaeDNA, ViralHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetagenomicsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSewageSiphoviridaeDNA, ViralRNA, ViralSewage

Identifiers

PMID28099518
PMCPMC5242460
OpenAlexW2579416926

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.