Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32551196›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Bacterial communities associated with cell phones and shoes.

David A Coil, Russell Y Neches, Jenna M Lang, Guillaume Jospin, Wendy E Brown, Darlene Cavalier, Jarrad Hampton-Marcell, Jack A Gilbert, Jonathan A Eisen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Forensic Applications of Microbiomics: A Review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020
    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

9 authors.

David A CoilGenome Center, University of California, Davis, CA, United States of America.
Russell Y NechesGenome Center, University of California, Davis, CA, United States of America.
Jenna M LangGenome Center, University of California, Davis, CA, United States of America.
Guillaume JospinGenome Center, University of California, Davis, CA, United States of America.
Wendy E BrownDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States of America.
Darlene CavalierScience Cheerleaders, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Jarrad Hampton-MarcellArgonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago, Lemont, IL, United States of America.
Jack A GilbertDepartment of Pediatrics and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, United States of America.
Jonathan A EisenGenome Center, Department of Evolution and Ecology, Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

16S rRNA gene surveyBiogeographyCell phonesMicrobial dark matterMicrobial ecologyShoes

Identifiers

PMID32551196
PMCPMC7292020

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.