Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31447815›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2019

Fishing in the Soup - Pathogen Detection in Food Safety Using Metabarcoding and Metagenomic Sequencing.

Josephine Grützke, Burkhard Malorny, Jens Andre Hammerl, Anne Busch, Simon H Tausch, Herbert Tomaso, Carlus Deneke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Influence of Cellulase orMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Microbial Community, Fermentation Quality, andFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Isolation Procedure for CPMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Josephine GrützkeDepartment of Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Burkhard MalornyDepartment of Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Jens Andre HammerlDepartment of Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Anne BuschInstitute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Jena, Germany.
Simon H TauschDepartment of Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Herbert TomasoInstitute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Jena, Germany.
Carlus DenekeDepartment of Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment · DEFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In food safety the detection of food contaminations with pathogenic microorganisms is a race against time and often outpaced by error-prone epidemiological approaches. For evidence-based outbreak investigations fast and reliable techniques and procedures are required to identify the source of infection. Metagenomics has the potential to become a powerful tool in the field of modern food safety, since it allows the detection, identification and characterization of a broad range of pathogens in a single experiment without pre-cultivation within a couple of days. Nevertheless, sample handling, sequencing and data analysis are challenging and can introduce errors and biases into the analysis. In order to evaluate the potential of metagenomics in food safety, we generated a mock community containing DNA of foodborne bacteria. Herewith, we compare the aptitude of the two prevalent approaches - 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing and whole genome shotgun sequencing - for the detection of foodborne bacteria using different parameters during sample preparation, sequencing and data analysis. 16S rDNA sequencing did not only result in high deviations from the expected sample composition on genus and species level, but more importantly lacked the detection of several pathogenic species. While shotgun sequencing is more suitable for species detection, abundance estimation, genome assembly and species characterization, the performance can vary depending on the library preparation kit, which was confirmed for a naturally

Indexed as

16Sbioinformaticsfood safetyFrancisella tularensisharmonisationmetagenomicsmock communityshotgun

Identifiers

PMID31447815
PMCPMC6691356
OpenAlexW2964242002

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.