Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30096155›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Interactions of organic acids with Campylobacter coli from swine.

Ross C Beier, Roger B Harvey, Charles A Hernandez, Michael E Hume, Kathleen Andrews, Robert E Droleskey, Maureen K Davidson, Sonia Bodeis-Jones, Shenia Young, Sara E Duke and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Use of Organic Acids to ControlIndian journal of microbiology · 2024
    Article
  4. Food science and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Inhibition and Interactions ofMicroorganisms · 2019
    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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ross C BeierUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3445-1008
Roger B HarveyUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Charles A HernandezUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Michael E HumeUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Kathleen AndrewsUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Robert E DroleskeyUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Maureen K DavidsonUnited States Food and Drug Administration, Office of Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Laurel, Maryland, United States of America.
Sonia Bodeis-JonesUnited States Food and Drug Administration, Office of Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Laurel, Maryland, United States of America.
Shenia YoungUnited States Food and Drug Administration, Office of Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Laurel, Maryland, United States of America.
Sara E DukeUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Robin C AndersonUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Tawni L CrippenUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Toni L PooleUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
David J NisbetUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Food and Feed Safety Research Unit, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Agricultural Research Service · USCenter for Veterinary Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Campylobacter coli is a bacterial species that is a major cause of diarrheal disease worldwide, and Campylobacter spp. are among the top 5 foodborne pathogens in the United States. During food production organic acids (OAs) are often used to remove bacteria from animal carcasses. The interactions of six OAs with 111 C. coli strains obtained from swine and retail pork chops were studied by determining the molar minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICMs) of the C. coli strains, and the pH at the MICMs. The Henderson-Hasselbalch equation was used to calculate the concentrations of the undissociated and dissociated OAs at the MICMs of the C. coli strains. The results for the 111 different C. coli strains obtained from different locations were treated as a single group for each OA since many of the C. coli strains behaved similarly to each different OA. Inhibition of C. coli was not dependent on pH or on the undissociated OA species, but C. coli inhibition correlated with the dissociated OA species. Therefore, if the concentration of the dissociated OAs decreases from optimum, one may then expect that C. coli bacteria would escape disinfection. The concentration of the dissociated OA should be carefully controlled in a carcass wash. We suggest maintaining a concentration of the dissociated acetic, butyric, citric, formic, lactic and propionic acids at 29, 23, 11, 35, 22 and 25 mM, respectively, when using a carcass wash with these OAs to remove C. coli bacteria. However, due to C. coli utilization of acetate, formate, lactate and propionate, these four OAs may not be the best choice to use for a carcass wash to remove C. coli contamination. Of the six OAs, citric acid was the most efficient at inhibiting C. coli.

Indexed as

AcidsCampylobacter coliDose-Response Relationship, DrugHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMicrobial Sensitivity TestsOrganic ChemicalsAcidsOrganic Chemicals

Identifiers

PMID30096155
PMCPMC6086449
OpenAlexW2885524985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.