ArticlePeerJ2020
Bacterial communities associated with cell phones and shoes.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Forensic Microbiomics and Trace Microbial Evidence: Molecular Innovations for Linking Suspects, Objects, and Environments.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- The Rumen Microbiome Composition of Raramuri Criollo and European Cattle in an Extensive System.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- The military gear microbiome: risk factors surrounding the warfighter.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2024Article
- Review
- Forensic Applications of Microbiomics: A Review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvery human being carries with them a collection of microbes, a collection that is likely both unique to that person, but also dynamic as a result of significant flux with the surrounding environment. The interaction of the human microbiome (i.e., the microbes that are found directly in contact with a person in places such as the gut, mouth, and skin) and the microbiome of accessory objects (e.g., shoes, clothing, phones, jewelry) is of potential interest to both epidemiology and the developing field of microbial forensics. Therefore, the microbiome of personal accessories are of interest because they serve as both a microbial source and sink for an individual, they may provide information about the microbial exposure experienced by an individual, and they can be sampled non-invasively.
findingsWe report here a large-scale study of the microbiome found on cell phones and shoes. Cell phones serve as a potential source and sink for skin and oral microbiome, while shoes can act as sampling devices for microbial environmental experience. Using 16S rRNA gene sequencing, we characterized the microbiome of thousands of paired sets of cell phones and shoes from individuals at sporting events, museums, and other venues around the United States.
conclusionsWe place this data in the context of previous studies and demonstrate that the microbiome of phones and shoes are different. This difference is driven largely by the presence of "environmental" taxa (taxa from groups that tend to be found in places like soil) on shoes and human-associated taxa (taxa from groups that are abundant in the human microbiome) on phones. This large dataset also contains many novel taxa, highlighting the fact that much of microbial diversity remains uncharacterized, even on commonplace objects.
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.