ReviewApplied and environmental microbiology2025
Optimizing experimental conditions: the role of buffered environments in microbial isolation, physiological studies, and taxonomic characterization.
Review in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- EngineeredSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2026Article
- Polycationic nanopeptide-fused endolysins for the control of Mannheimia haemolytica.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Probiotic and Postbiotic Interactions ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- ProlongedFrontiers in transplantation · 2026Article
- Discovery and cultivation of prokaryotic taxa in the age of metagenomics and artificial intelligence.The ISME journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Using a buffered medium is considered essential for enriching and cultivating novel microbial taxa, studying their pH range and optima, and conducting different physiological experiments. Experimental evidence showed that different buffer compounds impact microbial physiology and cell growth differently, and some of them exert toxic and inhibitory effects on organisms under study. Laboratory growth media supplemented with incompatible buffers could also suppress the organism's growth. Therefore, the selection of buffers without the knowledge of their implications on cell growth and physiology in such experiments yields an inaccurate estimate of their physiological abilities and pH range and optima. In this paper, the authors argue against the use of buffered medium to enrich and isolate novel taxa and suggest determining the pH range and optima using unbuffered medium for taxonomic description and physiological characterization. Based on previous literature and our observations, we recommend the use of rich universal laboratory growth medium with their pH adjusted using 1 N NaOH and/or 1 N HCl for such studies, except in cases where the organism cannot grow in such media. However, the pH of the growth medium must be continuously monitored, and in cases where the medium's buffering capacity is compromised, a suitable pH buffer with only a neutral effect on cell growth must be used for more accurate physiological experiments with that organism in the future. Based on the inhibitory effects of buffers on different cells (prokaryotes and eukaryotes) and physiological activities, in this manuscript, we also recommend that the compatibility of the buffers should be first screened before starting any physiological experiments, and any buffer compound should be avoided in the culture medium during the designing of the culturomics protocols for the cultivation of novel taxa from natural samples.
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.