Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31166992›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Ground beef microbiome changes with antimicrobial decontamination interventions and product storage.

Margaret D Weinroth, Brianna C Britton, Kathryn R McCullough, Jennifer N Martin, Ifigenia Geornaras, Rob Knight, Keith E Belk, Jessica L Metcalf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. 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. Insects · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

8 authors.

Margaret D WeinrothDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8351-395X
Brianna C BrittonDepartment of Food Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States of America.
Kathryn R McCulloughNorth American Meat Institute, Washington D.C., United States of America.
Jennifer N MartinDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Ifigenia GeornarasDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Rob KnightDepartments of Pediatrics, Bioengineering, and Computer Science and Engineering, and Center for Microbiome Innovation, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Keith E BelkDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Jessica L MetcalfDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ground beef makes up more than half of the beef consumed in the U.S. market. Although numerous studies have been conducted on microbial safety and shelf life of ground beef limited work has been done using a culture-independent approach. While past studies have allowed for the evaluation of a few organisms of interest, there is limited work on the microbial community associated with fresh ground beef. In order to have a more complete picture of the microbial ecology of the product, a culture-independent approach utilizing 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing was used. The objectives of this study were to characterize the fresh ground beef microbiome and the effect that antimicrobial interventions and antioxidants, applied to beef trim before grinding, and product storage have on community composition using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Beef trimmings were treated with antimicrobials and an antioxidant. Samples were ground, loafed, and overwrapped before being packaged in modified-atmosphere packaging. Samples were in dark storage for 21 days followed by five days in retail display. Periodically during storage, samples were collected for microbiological analysis and DNA isolation. Due to low microbial biomass, only 52 of 210 samples were included in the final analysis. These samples represented two antimicrobial treatments (peroxyacetic acid, and a sulfuric acid and sodium sulfate blend) and a control, from day-15 of dark storage and day-5 of retail display. As sample age increased, so did the number of raw reads (P < 0.001) and aerobic plate counts (P < 0.001), which were correlated (r = 0.94, P = 0.017). Across all samples, lactic acid bacteria were most abundant followed by Enterobacteriaceae; several rare taxa were also identified (namely Geobacillus, Thermus, and Sporosarcina). Antimicrobial treatment altered the bacterial alpha (P < 0.001) and beta (P = 0.001) diversity, while storage day altered alpha (P = 0.001) diversity. Enterobacteriaceae relative abundance differed (P < 0.05) among treatments and was highest in control samples. In addition to confirming previously described dominant microbial differences in culture-dependent results, these data identified genera not typically associated with ground beef and allowed for study of shifts in the entire microbiome and not just a subset of indicator organisms.

Indexed as

DecontaminationFood PreservationMicrobiotaAnti-Infective AgentsAntioxidantsBacteriaBiodiversityBiomassColony Count, MicrobialPhylogenyRed MeatSequence Analysis, DNATime FactorsAnti-Infective AgentsAntioxidants

Identifiers

PMID31166992
PMCPMC6550395

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.