ArticleScientific reports2024
Detection of non-pathogenic and pathogenic populations of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in various samples by the conventional, quantitative and droplet digital PCRs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Droplet Digital PCR Method for Simultaneous Detection and Quantification ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mechanistic Design of Graphdiyne-Based Multimodal Sensing Integrating Machine Learning and Photothermal Dynamics for Precision Recognition and On-Demand Inactivation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Droplet Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for QuantifyingFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Rapid on-site detection of viable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in seafood using cis-diamminedichloroplatinum and colorimetric loop-mediated isothermal amplification (CDDP-LAMP).International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2025Article
- Molecular methods for rapid detection and identification of foodborne pathogenic bacteria.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, three generations of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays: (i) conventional PCR, (ii) qPCR and (iii) droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), were systematically tested for their abilities to detect non-pathogenic and pathogenic populations of Vibrio parahaemolyticus. The limit of detection (LOD) for the ddPCR was 1.1 pg/µL of purified DNA, followed by the qPCR (5.6 pg/µL) and the conventional PCR (8.8 pg/µL). Regarding the LOD for V. parahaemolyticus cells, the ddPCR assay was able to detect 29 cells, followed by the conventional PCR assay (58 cells) and the qPCR assay (115 cells). Regarding the sensitivities to detect this pathogen from PCR inhibition prone samples (naturally contaminated mussels), the ddPCR assay significantly outperformed the conventional PCR and qPCR. The ddPCR assay was able to consistently detect non-pathogenic and pathogenic populations of V. parahaemolyticus from naturally contaminated mussels, indicating its tolerance to various PCR inhibitors. This study also revealed the significant difference between conventional PCR and qPCR. The conventional PCR assay showed significantly greater sensitivity than that of the qPCR assay in detecting V. parahaemolyticus in crude samples, whereas the qPCR assay showed better sensitivity in detecting the presence of V. parahaemolyticus in purified DNA samples.
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.