ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Comparative microbial metagenomic analysis of drinking water plants and wastewater treatment plants in Istanbul.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and drinking-water treatment plants (DWTPs) are critical for public health due to the potential risks posed by microorganisms that may persist after treatment. The aim of this study was to detect the microbiome profiles of waters from both DWTPs and WWTPs under the Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration (ISKI), identify the antimicrobial resistance profiles in all these facilities, and observe the differences in the microbiome between the inlet and outlet of different WWTPs. Methods: A total of 52 samples were examined, comprising 18 samples from DWTPs and 34 samples from WWTPs. All water samples underwent pre-isolation filtration. DNA isolation was conducted using filter material, followed by sequencing on a NovaSeq 6000 instrument. Kraken2 tools and R scripts were used for statistical analysis and data visualization. Results: The microbial metagenomic analysis identified 71 phyla, 113 classes, 217 orders, 480 families, and 1,282 genera across all samples. There were unclassified microbes (53.14% vs. 58.75%), Eukaryota (3.64% vs. 3.5%), Archaea (0.08% vs. 0.03%), bacteria (42% vs. 36.25%), and viruses (0.02% vs. 0.04%) in the raw water and ozonation unit outlet of DWTPs. The inlet and outlet of WWTPs showed unclassified microbes (52.68% vs. 59.62%), Eukaryota (0.6% vs. 1.72%), Archaea (0.26% vs. 0.15%), bacteria (46.43% vs. 38.43%), and viruses (0.05% vs. 0.04%). No statistically significant results were found in the analysis of raw waters collected from DWTPs and samples taken from the ozonation unit outlet-from the phylum level to the genus level ( Discussion: There were no significant microbial risk differentiation between biological WWTPs and advanced biological WWTPs. The data could serve as preliminary information for future research. More extensive studies are needed, with multiple sample tracking in these facilities and their feeding basins.
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.