ArticleEnvironmental microbiome2025
Implementation and comparison of two concentration methods to detect and characterize bacteriophages and bacterial hosts from large drinking water samples.
Article in Environmental microbiome, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drinking water distribution systems (DWDS) are low biomass biomes harboring a large variety of microorganisms. Much of the attention has been focused on bacteria, whose diversity and abundance in DWDS were repeatedly shown to be influenced by abiotic factors such as pH, temperature, growth inhibitors and water sources. However, little is known about biotic factors, such as bacteriophage presence, even though they are known to be present in DWDS and to influence bacterial dynamics. While bacteriophage impact has been assessed in natural environments such as oceans, little is known about the way they shape DWDS bacterial communities. To fill this knowledge gap and accessing bacteriophage diversity from such low biomass environment, the present study aimed to propose and compare two methods based on ultrafiltration and adsorption/elution methods, already used for the concentration of bacteria and virus from water. To this end, both methods were compared with a weekly sample collection, for one month, on the DWDS of Paris, France. Metagenomic sequencing was performed on concentrated samples to investigate the presence and diversity of bacteriophages, using a coupling of complementary bioinformatic prediction tools. Though viral fractions represented a minority of recovered contigs (1.5 to 2.5%), most were associated with Caudoviricetes class. The predicted bacterial hosts matched with the observed bacterial diversity, highlighting the robustness of host prediction tool. A total of 437 putative phages were present in all samples, constituting a core phage diversity. Among those, 380 viral contigs contained sequences showing significant non-viral matches. We leveraged this information to further refine the inference of bioinformatics pairs of bacterial hosts and their phages. In conclusion, we propose a method to simultaneously concentrate bacteriophages with bacteria from low-biomass environment. Through metagenomics, this study showed that an optimized bioinformatic pipeline could provide an overview of DWDS phage diversity. Moreover, this method allowed to detect sequence similarities between phages and bacteria, suggesting potential genetic exchanges and providing clues for host spectrum. Altogether, this study highlights the tight interactions between bacteria and bacteriophages in drinking water and the possibility to study both phages and potential hosts to better grasp their intricate interplay.
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.