ArticleThe Science of the total environment2018
Improving the ecological relevance of aquatic bacterial communities in biodegradability screening assessments.
Article in The Science of the total environment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scientific concepts and methods for moving persistence assessments into the 21st century.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2022Review
- The source and fate of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in wastewater and possible routes of transmission.BMC public health · 2022Article
- What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Concentrating cells from aqueous samples is a common requirement for the enumeration of biomass, investigations of microbial diversity and detection of relatively rare organisms in the environment. Accurately representing the initial sampled environments in the concentrated cells is of particular importance when the subsequent analyses have tangible environmental, economic and societal consequences, as is the case with environmental exposure and risk assessment of chemicals. This study investigated the potential use of four different cell concentration methods: centrifugation, membrane filtration, tangential flow filtration and column colonisation. These methods were assessed against a series of scientific and practical criteria, including: similarity of concentrated community to initial environmental sample; cell concentration achieved; biodegradation test outcome; sample throughput; and capital and maintenance costs. All methods increased cell concentration by as little as 10-fold to as much as 1000-fold. DGGE and 454 pyrosequencing analysis showed concentrated communities to have >60% similarity to each other, and the initial sample. There was a general trend for a more reliable assessment of 4-nitrophenol biodegradation in 96-well plate biodegradation assays, with increasing cell concentration. Based on the selection criteria, it is recommended that there is not one concentration method fit for all purposes, rather, the appropriate method should be selected on a case-by-case basis. Membrane filtration would be the most suitable method for low sample volumes; the increased throughput capacity of tangential flow filtration renders it most suitable for large volumes; and centrifugation is most suitable for samples with high initial biomass concentrations. The poor similarity in microbial community composition of the column colonised samples compared to the initial samples, suggested a concentration basis; this combined with its low sample throughput precluded this approach for future concentration studies of planktonic bacterial samples.
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.