ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Microbial source tracking of human and animal fecal contamination in Ecuadorian households.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Exposures to both human and animal feces pose human health risks, particularly for young children in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings where domestic animals are common, water and sanitation infrastructure is often limited, and enteropathogen transmission is high. Microbial source tracking (MST) markers specific to feces from humans and particular animal types can be used to identify the provenance of microbial contamination, yet most MST studies explore few household environmental sample types, limiting understanding of how marker utility varies by matrix. We validated qPCR assays for six MST markers and quantified their prevalence in 585 samples from 59 households spanning an urban-rural gradient in northwestern Ecuador. We used GenBac3 to test for general fecal contamination, and HF183, Rum2Bac, Pig2Bac, DG37, and GFD to test for human, ruminant, swine, dog, and avian contamination, respectively. Approximately 10 sample types were collected per household, including: rinses of child and adult hands, swabs of floors and surfaces, soil, domestic and drinking water, and food. GenBac3 and HF183 were detected in 77.82% and 15.36% of samples, respectively. Animal-associated markers were detected less frequently, in 0.5-4.1% of samples. However, when present, animal marker concentrations were comparable to HF183. Host-associated markers were most often detected in adult and child hand rinse and floor samples, and GenBac3 concentrations were highest in hand rinses. HF183 detection on adult caregiver hands was associated with increased odds of HF183 detection on children's hands and floors.
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.