ArticleEnvironmental science & technology letters2024
Advancing Source Tracking: Systematic Review and Source-Specific Genome Database Curation of Fecally Shed Prokaryotes.
Article in Environmental science & technology letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- SourceApp: A Novel Metagenomic Source Tracking Tool that can Distinguish between Fecal Microbiomes Using Genome-To-Source Associations Benchmarked Against Mixed Input Spike-In Mesocosms.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Advancing Source Tracking: Systematic Review and Source-Specific Genome Database Curation of Fecally Shed Prokaryotes.Environmental science & technology letters · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancements within fecal source tracking (FST) studies are complicated by a lack of knowledge regarding the genetic content and distribution of fecally shed microbial populations. To address this gap, we performed a systematic literature review and curated a large collection of genomes (n = 26,018) representing fecally shed prokaryotic species across broad and narrow source categories commonly implicated in FST studies of recreational waters (i.e., cats, dogs, cows, seagulls, chickens, pigs, birds, ruminants, human feces, and wastewater). We find that across these sources the total number of prokaryotic genomes recovered from materials meeting our initial inclusion criteria varied substantially across fecal sources: from none in seagulls to 9,085 in pigs. We examined genome sequences recovered from these metagenomic and isolation-based studies extensively via comparative genomic approaches to characterize trends across source categories and produce a finalized genome database for each source category which is available online (n = 12,730). On average, 81% of the genomes representing species-level populations occur only within a single source. Using fecal slurries to test the performance of each source database, we report read capture rates that vary with fecal source alpha diversity and database size. We expect this resource to be useful to FST-related objectives, One Health research, and sanitation efforts globally.
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.