ArticlePloS one2017
A multiplex real-time PCR for the detection and differentiation of Campylobacter phages.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Luminal and mucosa-associated caecal microbiota of chickens after experimentalMicrobial genomics · 2022Article
- Article
- Application of Bacteriophages to LimitFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
- Isolation and Characterization of Group IIIFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Review
- Phage Biocontrol ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- 1st German Phage Symposium-Conference Report.Viruses · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli are important food-borne pathogens that are widespread in animal husbandry. To combat Campylobacter along the food chain, the application of lytic phages has been shown to be a promising tool. Campylobacter phages are currently classified into three groups, of which group II and group III phages are the most common. Members of each group are closely related, whereas the two groups share only little DNA similarity. Moreover, while group III phages are specific for C. jejuni, group II phages additionally infect C. coli. Phage cocktails intended to be used for applications should be composed of various phages that differ in their host range and growth kinetics. The isolation of phages is generally performed by plaque assays. This approach has the limitation that phages are merely identified by their lytic activity on certain indicator strains and that relatively high numbers of phages must be present in a tested sample. Therefore, a more sensitive molecular detection system would be beneficial, which allows a pre-screening of samples and the quick detection and discrimination of group II and group III phages. New phages can then be isolated by use of indicator strains that may be different from those typically applied. On the basis of available Campylobacter phage genome sequences, we developed a multiplex PCR system for group II and group III phages selecting the tail tube gene and the gene for the base plate wedge, respectively, as target. Phages of both groups could be identified with primers deduced from the putative tail fiber gene. Efficient release of phage DNA from capsids was achieved by an extended heat treatment or digestion of phage particles with proteinase K/SDS yielding a detection limit of 1 pfu/ml. Individual detection of group II phages, group III phages and of both groups was studied with artificially contaminated chicken skin. To recover phages that had strongly adhered to the skin, stomaching was the most efficient technique. The developed PCR protocol was employed to detect Campylobacter phages in food and environmental samples. In 50 out of 110 samples group II and/or group III phages were identified.
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.