ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2023
Methods for detection and identification of beer-spoilage microbes.
Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Smart Chemical Sensors for Monitoring and Detection of Spoilage in Fermented and Non-Fermented Food Products.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Polyphenolic Content and Antimicrobial Effects of Plant Extracts as Adjuncts for Craft Herbal Beer Stabilization.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Depiction of the In Vitro and Genomic Basis of Resistance to Hop and High Hydrostatic Pressure ofGenes · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is critical that breweries of all sizes routinely monitor the microbiome of their process to limit financial losses due to microbial contamination. Contamination by beer-spoiling microbes (BSMs) at any point during the brewing process may lead to significant losses for breweries if gone undetected and allowed to spread. Testing and detection of BSMs must be routine and rapid, and because even small breweries need the capability of BSM detection and identification, the method also needs to be affordable. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are responsible for most spoilage incidents, many of which have been shown to enter the viable but nonculturable (VBNC) state under conditions present in beer such as cold or oxidative stress. These bacteria are invisible to traditional methods of detection using selective media. This article describes several methods of BSM detection and identification that may be useful in the majority of craft breweries. While there are several genomic methods that meet some or many qualifications of being useful in craft breweries, real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) currently best meets the desired method characteristics and holds the most utility in this industry, specifically SYBR Green qPCR. qPCR is a targeted method of detection and identification of microbes that is affordable, rapid, specific, sensitive, quantitative, and reliable, and when paired with valid DNA extraction techniques can be used to detect BSMs, including those in the VBNC state.
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.