ReviewLetters in applied microbiology2020
How industrial bacterial cultures can be kept stable over time.
Review in Letters in applied microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Microbial biobanking: safeguarding the tiny treasures for sustainable human welfare.Folia microbiologica · 2026Review
- Intra-strain genetic heterogeneity in Toxoplasma gondii ME49: Oxford Nanopore long-read sequencing reveals copy number variation in the ROP8-ROP2A locus.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Potential probiotic lactobacilli strains isolated from artisanal Mexican Cocido cheese: evidence-based biosafety and probiotic action-related traits on in vitro tests.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023Article
- In vivo, in vitro and in silico: an open space for the development of microbe-based applications of synthetic biology.Microbial biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The tremendous variation that exists between bacterial species illustrates the power of evolution, which is the continuous process of mutation and selection over time. Even within a bacterial species, individual members can harbour an impressive degree of genetic variation, depending on the species. The question then arises how similar the offspring of a given bacterial cell over time is, and how long it takes before differences are noticeable? Here we show that on the one hand one can expect random mutations to arise, as a result of various mechanisms. On the other hand, there are forces at play that keep the offspring of a cell genetically relatively constant, unless there is selection for a particular characteristic. The most common mechanisms behind mutations that can appear in a bacterial population are briefly introduced. Next, it is explained why nevertheless such mutations are rarely observed, as long as single colonies are randomly selected, unless selective pressures apply. Since quality control of industrial bacterial cultures is likely to depend heavily on genome sequencing in the near future, the accuracy of whole-genomic sequencing technologies is also discussed. It can be concluded that the bacteriologists who started picking single colonies from agar plates more than hundred years ago were unknowingly ingeneous, as their practice maintains a bacterial culture stable over time. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF STUDY: The questions addressed here are relevant for industries that depend on live bacteria for (manufacturing of) their products, as they have to guard their bacterial cultures that remain unchanged over time. The explanation why randomly selection of single colonies keeps a population stable can be of use in bacteriology courses. The limitations of whole-genome sequencing are relevant to legislators to avoid overinterpretation of those data.
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.