Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30147432›Full record

ArticleJournal of sea research2018

Nucleic acids-based tools for ballast water surveillance, monitoring, and research.

John A Darling, Raymond M Frederick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sea research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

John A DarlingNational Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Raymond M FrederickNational Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, NJ, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the risks of biological invasion posed by ballast water-whether in the context of compliance testing, routine monitoring, or basic research-is fundamentally an exercise in biodiversity assessment, and as such should take advantage of the best tools available for tackling that problem. The past several decades have seen growing application of genetic methods for the study of biodiversity, driven in large part by dramatic technological advances in nucleic acids analysis. Monitoring approaches based on such methods have the potential to increase dramatically sampling throughput for biodiversity assessments, and to improve on the sensitivity, specificity, and taxonomic accuracy of traditional approaches. The application of targeted detection tools (largely focused on PCR but increasingly incorporating novel probe-based methodologies) has led to a paradigm shift in rare species monitoring, and such tools have already been applied for early detection in the context of ballast water surveillance. Rapid improvements in community profiling approaches based on high throughput sequencing (HTS) could similarly impact broader efforts to catalogue biodiversity present in ballast tanks, and could provide novel opportunities to better understand the risks of biotic exchange posed by ballast water transport-and the effectiveness of attempts to mitigate those risks. These various approaches still face considerable challenges to effective implementation, depending on particular management or research needs. Compliance testing, for instance, remains dependent on accurate quantification of viable target organisms; while tools based on RNA detection show promise in this context, the demands of such testing require considerable additional investment in methods development. In general surveillance and research contexts, both targeted and community-based approaches are still limited by various factors: quantification remains a challenge (especially for taxa in larger size classes), gaps in nucleic acids reference databases are still considerable, uncertainties in taxonomic assignment methods persist, and many applications have not yet matured sufficiently to offer standardized methods capable of meeting rigorous quality assurance standards. Nevertheless, the potential value of these tools, their growing utilization in biodiversity monitoring, and the rapid methodological advances over the past decade all suggest that they should be seriously considered for inclusion in the ballast water surveillance toolkit.

Indexed as

Ballast waterComplianceHigh throughput sequencingMonitoringNucleic acidsPCR

Identifiers

PMID30147432
PMCPMC6104837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.