Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32221361›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Site-specific molecular analysis of the bacteriota on worn spectacles.

Birgit Fritz, Melanie März, Severin Weis, Siegfried Wahl, Focke Ziemssen, Markus Egert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. First Animal Source Metagenome Assembly ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Comprehensive Compositional Analysis of the Slit Lamp Bacteriota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Impurities in Drug Vials Intended for Intravitreal Medication.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2020
    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

6 authors.

Birgit FritzFaculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Institute of Precision Medicine, Microbiology and Hygiene Group, Furtwangen University, Jakob-Kienzle-Strasse 17, 78054, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
Melanie MärzFaculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Institute of Precision Medicine, Microbiology and Hygiene Group, Furtwangen University, Jakob-Kienzle-Strasse 17, 78054, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
Severin WeisFaculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Institute of Precision Medicine, Microbiology and Hygiene Group, Furtwangen University, Jakob-Kienzle-Strasse 17, 78054, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
Siegfried WahlInstitute for Ophthalmic Research, Eberhard-Karls University, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 7, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3437-6711
Focke ZiemssenCenter for Ophthalmology, Eberhard-Karls University, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 7, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3873-0581
Markus EgertFaculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Institute of Precision Medicine, Microbiology and Hygiene Group, Furtwangen University, Jakob-Kienzle-Strasse 17, 78054, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany. Markus.Egert@hs-furtwangen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2402-3322

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regularly touched surfaces are usually contaminated with microorganisms and might be considered as fomites. The same applies for spectacles, but only little is known about their microbial colonization. Previous cultivation-based analyses from our group revealed a bacterial load strongly dominated by staphylococci. To better account for aerotolerant anaerobes, slow growing and yet-uncultivated bacteria, we performed an optimized 16S rRNA gene sequencing approach targeting the V1-V3 region. 30 spectacles were swab-sampled at three sites, each (nosepads, glasses and earclips). We detected 5232 OTUs affiliated with 19 bacterial phyla and 665 genera. Actinobacteria (64%), Proteobacteria (22%), Firmicutes (7%) and Bacteroidetes (5%) were relatively most abundant. At genus level, 13 genera accounted for 84% of the total sequences of all spectacles, having a prevalence of more than 1% relative abundance. Propionibacterium (57%), Corynebacterium (5%), Staphylococcus (4%), Pseudomonas, Sphingomonas and Lawsonella (3%, each) were the dominant genera. Interestingly, bacterial diversity on the glasses was significantly higher compared to nosepads and earclips. Our study represents the first cultivation-independent study of the bacteriota of worn spectacles. Dominated by bacteria of mostly human skin and epithelia origin and clearly including potential pathogens, spectacles may play a role as fomites, especially in clinical environments.

Indexed as

AdultBacteriaBiodiversityEyeglassesFemaleFomitesHumansMaleRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSkinYoung AdultRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID32221361
PMCPMC7101307

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.