ArticleMicroorganisms2020
Metagenomics-Based Proficiency Test of Smoked Salmon Spiked with a Mock Community.
Article in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection ofItalian journal of food safety · 2026Article
- Detection of parasites in food and water matrices by shotgun metagenomics: A narrative review.Food and waterborne parasitology · 2025Review
- Monitoring and preventing foodborne outbreaks: are we missing wastewater as a key data source?Italian journal of food safety · 2024Review
- An interlaboratory proficiency test using metagenomic sequencing as a diagnostic tool for the detection of RNA viruses in swine fecal material.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Enhancing Clinical Utility: Utilization of International Standards and Guidelines for Metagenomic Sequencing in Infectious Disease Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- One Health surveillance-A cross-sectoral detection, characterization, and notification of foodborne pathogens.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Application of a strain-level shotgun metagenomics approach on food samples: resolution of the source of aMicrobial genomics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An inter-laboratory proficiency test was organized to assess the ability of participants to perform shotgun metagenomic sequencing of cold smoked salmon, experimentally spiked with a mock community composed of six bacteria, one parasite, one yeast, one DNA, and two RNA viruses. Each participant applied its in-house wet-lab workflow(s) to obtain the metagenomic dataset(s), which were then collected and analyzed using MG-RAST. A total of 27 datasets were analyzed. Sample pre-processing, DNA extraction protocol, library preparation kit, and sequencing platform, influenced the abundance of specific microorganisms of the mock community. Our results highlight that despite differences in wet-lab protocols, the reads corresponding to the mock community members spiked in the cold smoked salmon, were both detected and quantified in terms of relative abundance, in the metagenomic datasets, proving the suitability of shotgun metagenomic sequencing as a genomic tool to detect microorganisms belonging to different domains in the same food matrix. The implementation of standardized wet-lab protocols would highly facilitate the comparability of shotgun metagenomic sequencing dataset across laboratories and sectors. Moreover, there is a need for clearly defining a sequencing reads threshold, to consider pathogens as detected or undetected in a food sample.
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.