ArticleFood and environmental virology2024
Evaluation of an Automated Ultrafiltration System for Concentrating a Range of Viruses from Saline Waters.
Article in Food and environmental virology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pathogenic viruses in environmental water are usually present in levels too low for direct detection and thus, a concentration step is often required to increase the analytical sensitivity. The objective of this study was to evaluate an automated filtration device, the Innovaprep Concentrating Pipette Select (CP Select) for the rapid concentration of viruses in saline water samples, while considering duration of process and ease of use. Four bacteriophages (MS2, P22, Phi6, and PhiX174) and three animal viruses (adenovirus, coronavirus OC43, and canine distemper virus) were seeded in artificial seawater, aquarium water, and bay water samples, and processed using the CP Select. The recovery efficiencies of viruses were determined either using a plaque assay or droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). Using plaque assays, the average recovery efficiencies for bacteriophages ranged from 4.84 ± 3.8% to 82.73 ± 27.3%, with highest recovery for P22 phage. The average recovery efficiencies for the CP Select were 39.31 ± 26.6% for adenovirus, 19.04 ± 11.6% for coronavirus OC43, and 19.84 ± 13.6% for canine distemper virus, as determined by ddPCR. Overall, viral genome composition, not the size of the virus, affected the recovery efficiencies for the CP Select. The small sample volume size used for the ultrafilter pipette of the system hinders the use of this method as a primary concentration step for viruses in marine waters. However, the ease of use and rapid processing time of the CP Select are especially beneficial when rapid detection of viruses in highly contaminated water, such as wastewater or sewage-polluted surface water, is needed.
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.