Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40151898›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental microbiology2025

Tracking Different States of Spiked Environmental DNA Using Multiplex Digital PCR Assays.

Julia Zöhrer, Judith Ascher-Jenull, Andreas O Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Julia ZöhrerDepartment of Microbiology, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0075-1352
Judith Ascher-JenullDepartment of Experimental Architecture, Integrative Design Extremes, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0127-8058
Andreas O WagnerDepartment of Microbiology, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6009-8498

Funding

Austrian Science Fund P33838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of microbial communities based on the total environmental DNA (eDNA) is influenced by the presence of different eDNA states, i.e., intracellular (iDNA) and extracellular DNA (exDNA), and the choice of the DNA extraction method. Although the use of spike-and-recovery controls facilitates the diagnosis of such issues, appropriate experimental setups simultaneously accounting for the different eDNA states and their bacterial origins are missing. Here, we used two single-gene deletion mutants of both Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis to trace exDNA and iDNA spike-ins of each selected model organism within environmental samples. Unique primer/probe sets were developed for each strain, allowing their absolute quantification using multiplex digital PCR assays. The proposed spike-and-recovery controls were successfully applied to various environments including soil, sediment, sludge and compost. While the percent recovery of spiked iDNA differed significantly between E. coli and B. subtilis, results were similar for both model organisms in the case of spiked exDNA, emphasising that the fate of DNA molecules in the environment is similar irrespective of their bacterial origin. Hence, future studies may benefit from the proposed approach to better understand methodological ambiguities related to the eDNA extraction in general as well as the separation of the different eDNA states.

Indexed as

Bacillus subtilisDNA, BacterialDNA, EnvironmentalEscherichia coliMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionSewageSoil MicrobiologyDNA, BacterialDNA, EnvironmentalSewageBacillus subtilisEscherichia coliextracellular DNAintracellular DNAspike‐and‐recovery controls

Identifiers

PMID40151898
PMCPMC11950903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.