Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41377044›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025

Cost-effective affinity support for the rapid separation of bacteria from complex food matrices.

Cheryl M Armstrong, Joseph A Capobianco, Andrew G Gehring

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Cheryl M Armstrong *United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, PA, United States.
Joseph A Capobianco *United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, PA, United States.
Andrew G GehringUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advancements in molecular biology have facilitated the ability to detect microbes of interest in low abundance within complex samples. Although these technologies are extremely powerful, they typically accommodate only very small volumes of liquid samples as inputs; making sample volume a critical constraint for many molecular methodologies. Because testing volumes are often restricted to the microliter range, methods that concentrate target microbes can broaden the applicability of these detection devices. Immunomagnetic separation (IMS) is an example of a sample preparation method capable of selectively concentrating targets; utilizing magnetically-sensitive materials coated with biorecognition elements to isolate targets of interest. While the commercial availability of micron-sized, conjugation-ready, superparamagnetic particles has amplified the success of IMS for interrogating samples <10 mL, querying of large sample volumes with these particles is often financially restrictive if performed routinely. Therefore, a cost-effective alternative that can be employed for large-volume samples is presented. Here, a low-cost coating allows the conjugation of antibodies to the surface of inexpensive permanent magnets; ultimately creating an economical solid support for the selective capture of microorganisms in both buffer and ground beef homogenate (a complex food matrix). The broad utility of this method was further demonstrated by capturing either

Indexed as

cell concentrationDynabeadsfood safetyimmunomagnetic particlesimmunomagnetic separationpathogen isolationsample preparation

Identifiers

PMID41377044
PMCPMC12685795

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.