ReviewGenes2018
Surveillance of Foodborne Pathogens: Towards Diagnostic Metagenomics of Fecal Samples.
Review in Genes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of shotgun metagenomics as a diagnostic tool for infectious gastroenteritis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Global health crisis and antimicrobial resistance: The need for increased metagenomics studies.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Co-Localization of Sampling and Sequencing for Zoonotic Pathogen Identification in the Field Monitoring Using Mobile Laboratories.China CDC weekly · 2022Article
- Metagenomics-Based Proficiency Test of Smoked Salmon Spiked with a Mock Community.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Identification of an unauthorized genetically modified bacteria in food enzyme through whole-genome sequencing.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Machine Learning Approaches for Epidemiological Investigations of Food-Borne Disease Outbreaks.Frontiers in microbiology · 2019Review
- Investigations by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection of food and food-borne infections in the Mediterranean Basin and in sub-Saharan Africa.New microbes and new infections · 2018Review
- A Versatile Sample Processing Workflow for Metagenomic Pathogen Detection.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic metagenomics is a rapidly evolving laboratory tool for culture-independent tracing of foodborne pathogens. The method has the potential to become a generic platform for detection of most pathogens and many sample types. Today, however, it is still at an early and experimental stage. Studies show that metagenomic methods, from sample storage and DNA extraction to library preparation and shotgun sequencing, have a great influence on data output. To construct protocols that extract the complete metagenome but with minimal bias is an ongoing challenge. Many different software strategies for data analysis are being developed, and several studies applying diagnostic metagenomics to human clinical samples have been published, detecting, and sometimes, typing bacterial infections. It is possible to obtain a draft genome of the pathogen and to develop methods that can theoretically be applied in real-time. Finally, diagnostic metagenomics can theoretically be better geared than conventional methods to detect co-infections. The present review focuses on the current state of test development, as well as practical implementation of diagnostic metagenomics to trace foodborne bacterial infections in fecal samples from animals and humans.
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.