Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31509598›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Bacterial community composition of biofilms in milking machines of two dairy farms assessed by a combination of culture-dependent and -independent methods.

Mareike Weber, Janine Liedtke, Susanne Plattes, André Lipski

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 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Biofilm comes back: Controlling regrowth by mitigating the cell-matrix interaction.Chemical engineering journal (Lausanne, Switzerland : 1996) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Mareike WeberDepartment of Food Microbiology and Hygiene, Institution of Nutrition and Food Science, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, Bonn, North-Rhine-Westfalia, Germany.
Janine LiedtkeDepartment of Food Microbiology and Hygiene, Institution of Nutrition and Food Science, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, Bonn, North-Rhine-Westfalia, Germany.
Susanne PlattesCIDRe, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University Bonn, Bonn, North-Rhine-Westfalia, Germany.
André LipskiDepartment of Food Microbiology and Hygiene, Institution of Nutrition and Food Science, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, Bonn, North-Rhine-Westfalia, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dairy biofilms as a source of contamination of milk and its products are of great concern in the dairy industry. For a reliable risk assessment, knowledge about the microbial community composition of biofilms in the milking systems of dairy farms must be improved. In this work, swab samples of milking machine biofilms of two dairy farms were investigated by a combination of culture-dependent and -independent methods. Spots in the milking system with enhanced microbial colonization were identified by quantification on selective and non-selective media. In addition, stainless steel coupons were placed into the piping system of a milking machine, removed after several milking intervals, and investigated for colonization by cultivation and culture-independently. Isolates were differentiated and identified by a combination of chemotaxonomical methods and 16S rRNA sequencing. The culture-independent approach involved treatment of the samples with the viability dye propidium monoazide prior to direct DNA-extraction by enzymatic cell lysis and cloning to exclude bias from dead biomass. The milking equipment retainers and the outlet of the milk bulk tank were identified as highly colonized spots on both farms. A high bacterial diversity was detected covering the phyla Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria. Presence of biofilms was demonstrated on several materials including stainless steel and plastic, which are frequently used in milking machines, but also in dairy processing plants. Growth of mainly Gram-positive bacteria with high percentages of the phylum Actinobacteria was detected on the stainless steel coupons after exposition in the milking system for two to three days. Knowledge about the heterogenic microbial load on different parts of the milking machines and the stainless steel coupons will help to identify primary colonizers of the milking system, to assess the risk potential of biofilms for raw milk, to improve sanitation processes and to identify parts of the milking machine, which should be improved by hygienic design.

Indexed as

AnimalsAzidesBacteriaBiofilmsCattleColony Count, MicrobialDairyingDNA, BacterialFood MicrobiologyMicrobiotaMilkPropidiumRNA, Ribosomal, 16SAzidesDNA, BacterialPropidiumpropidium monoazideRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID31509598
PMCPMC6738651

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.