ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2026
The Contribution of Chemistry to the Detection and Enumeration of Legionella pneumophila in Environmental Water Samples: Experience With the MICA Method.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Legionella is widespread in natural aquatic habitats and can contaminate man-made water systems. Due to public-health risks, measuring microbial load in water samples is essential. This study compared a new lipopolysaccharide bioprobe method (Microcolony Counter Analysis-MICA), which detects and counts Legionella pneumophila in 2 days, with the standard culture method (ISO 11731:2017), which may take up to 10 days. Our results on 108 water samples showed 82.4% agreement. Fifteen were ISO+/MICA- and four ISO-/MICA+; MICA sensitivity was 67.4%. Analysis of culture-media factors (Legionella inhibition by contaminating flora; culture on Glycine Vancomycin Polymyxin Cycloheximide agar (GVPC) and MICA factors (possible killing/growth inhibition due to acid treatment) showed that (a) ISO counts tended to be higher than MICA, with little difference whether GVPC results or the maximum yield between Buffered Charcoal Yeast Extract agar (BCYE) and GVPC were used. (b) Acid-treated MICA samples tended to yield higher counts than untreated ones, especially at high MICA counts. Considering what has been disclosed, a short 48-h incubation may reduce MICA recovery for some wild L. pneumophila strains, affecting click-based detection. With refinement, MICA could be a practical, user-friendly diagnostic tool, simpler sample prep, no large-volume filtration, no colony isolation or extra confirmation and provides confirmed results in 2 days versus ≥ 10 days for ISO culture.
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.