Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29561873›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Evaluation of milk sample fractions for characterization of milk microbiota from healthy and clinical mastitis cows.

Svetlana Ferreira Lima, Marcela Lucas de Souza Bicalho, Rodrigo Carvalho Bicalho

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Health Problems with Mycotoxins in Cattle-A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Optimization ofJournal of environmental engineering (New York, N.Y.) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Expressions of IL4, IL10, and IFNγ cytokines genes during bacterial mastitis.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2022
    Article
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

3 authors.

Svetlana Ferreira LimaDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Marcela Lucas de Souza BicalhoDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Rodrigo Carvalho BicalhoDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4680-1981

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amplicon sequencing technique has been increasingly applied to the clinical setting as a sensitive diagnostic tool. Therefore, it is of great importance to develop a DNA extraction method that accurate isolates DNA from complex host-associated microbiota. Given the multifactorial etiology of clinical mastitis and the diversified lifestyle of bacterial species harboring in milk, here four distinct milk sample fractions: raw whole milk, milk fat, casein-pellet, and casein-pellet + fat from healthy cows and cows with clinical mastitis, were subjected to bead-beating DNA extraction, followed by high-throughput sequencing. We aimed to identify the best approach for characterization of the milk microbiota and detection of mastitis pathogens (Klebsiella spp., Streptococcus spp. and Escherichia coli). DNA from each milk fraction tested was extracted by two commercial kits, which include physical, mechanical and chemical lysis; in total 280 DNA samples from 35 cows were analyzed. Milk-health-status were categorized into four groups (healthy group; E. coli-mastitis group; Klebsiella spp.-mastitis group; and Streptococcus spp.-mastitis group). Bacterial phyla and families were described for each milk-health-status group across milk sample fractions and DNA extraction kits. For the mastitis groups the relative abundance of f__Enterobacteriaceae and f__Streptococcaceae were compared to determine the efficacy of procedures in detecting the mastitis pathogens. The four milk fractions used allowed efficiently and uniformly detection of the causative agent of mastitis. Only 27% of the families detected in healthy milk were shared among the samples extracted from all fractions of milk samples; followed by 3, 4, and 12% for the samples from E. coli-mastitis, Klebsiella spp.-mastitis and Streptococcus spp-mastitis, respectively. However, the shared families comprised a mean relative abundance greater than 85%, regardless of milk-health-status, milk fraction and DNA isolation method. Taxonomic data at the family level showed that sequences from mastitis milk samples cultured positive for E. coli and Klebsiella spp. were predominantly affiliated with f__Enterobacteriaceae, while for Streptococcus spp. were dominated by f__Streptococcacea, followed by f__Pseudomonadaceae and f__Enterococcaceae. Microbial community analysis revealed that most of the microbial community composition corresponded to milk bacterial species irrespective of the DNA isolation method and milk fraction evaluated.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsCattleDairyingDNA, BacterialFemaleMastitis, BovineMilkDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID29561873
PMCPMC5862444

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.