Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40271091›Full record

ReviewGerms2024

Comparison of microbial preservation methods: a narrative review.

Wijesundara Mudiyanselage Thilini Nimansala Senaratne, Jayaweera Arachchige Asela Sampath Jayaweera

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Germs, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

2 authors.

Wijesundara Mudiyanselage Thilini Nimansala SenaratneBSc Department of Microbiology Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, 50008, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.
Jayaweera Arachchige Asela Sampath JayaweeraMBBS, Dmicro, MSc, MPhil, MD, FRCPath Department of microbiology Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, 50008, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many microorganisms are used to produce antibiotics, vaccines, and medicines for various diseases, and preserving these microorganisms and viruses can ensure that the development process is streamlined. We have reviewed the short-term and long-term microbial and viral preservation methods including novel and emerging technologies. Short-term preservation methods of microorganisms are designed to maintain the viability of the organisms for periods ranging from a few days up to one year. The novel microfluid systems allow for the creation of microenvironments that support the growth and proliferation of specific microorganisms and the isolation of individual cells or small populations of microorganisms for studying microbial behavior and interactions. Long-term preservation involves storing the organisms for an extended period, ranging from months to decades, while retaining their viability and genetic stability. The mineral oil or liquid paraffin storage, storage in distilled water, storage in sterile soil, lyophilization, and cryopreservation are well known, and encapsulation of nanoparticles to preserve microorganisms, electrospinning, and electro spraying and supercooling are novel and emerging methods. Each short and long-term microbial and viral preservation method has advantages and disadvantages, and, based on the requirement, the appropriate method can be chosen.

Indexed as

long-termMicroorganismsnovel methodspreservationshort-termviruses

Identifiers

PMID40271091
PMCPMC12013664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.