↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Concentration Methods for Quantitative Detection of Sewage-Associated Viral Markers in Environmental Waters

Overview of attention for article published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Concentration Methods for Quantitative Detection of Sewage-Associated Viral Markers in Environmental Waters
Published in
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2015
DOI 10.1128/aem.03851-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Ahmed, V. J. Harwood, P. Gyawali, J. P. S. Sidhu, S. Toze

Abstract

Pathogenic human viruses cause over half of gastroenteritis cases associated with recreational water use worldwide. They are relatively difficult to concentrate from environmental waters due to typically low concentrations and their small size. Although rapid enumeration of viruses by quantitative PCR (qPCR) has the potential to greatly improve water quality analysis and risk assessment, the upstream steps of capturing and recovering viruses from environmental water sources along with removing PCR inhibitors from extracted nucleic acids remain formidable barriers to routine use. Here, we compared the efficiency of virus recovery for three rapid methods of concentrating two microbial source tracking (MST) viral markers human adenoviruses (HAdVs) and polyomaviruses (HPyVs) from one liter tap water and river water samples on HA membranes (90 mm diameter). Samples were spiked with raw sewage, and viral adsorption to membranes was promoted by acidification (Method A) or addition of MgCl2 (Methods B and C). Viral nucleic acid was extracted directly from membranes (Method A), or viruses were eluted with NaOH and concentrated by centrifugal ultrafiltration (Methods B and C). No inhibition of qPCR was observed for samples processed by Method A, but inhibition occurred in river samples processed by B and C. Recovery efficiencies of HAdVs and HPyVs were approximately ten-fold greater for Method A (31-78%) than B and C (2.4-12%). Further analysis of membranes from Method B revealed that the majority of viruses were not eluted from the membrane, resulting in poor recovery. The modification of the originally published Method A to include a larger diameter membrane and a nucleic acid extraction kit that could accommodate the membrane resulted in a rapid virus concentration method with good recovery and lack of inhibitory compounds. The frequently-used strategy of viral absorption with added cations (Mg(2+)) and elution with acid were inefficient and more prone to inhibition, and will result in underestimation of the prevalence and concentrations of HAdVs and HPyVs markers in environmental waters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Slovenia 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 34%
Student > Master 13 22%
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 29%
Environmental Science 16 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Unspecified 5 9%
Engineering 4 7%
Other 10 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2015.
All research outputs
#7,059,745
of 12,508,562 outputs
Outputs from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
#7,009
of 9,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,647
of 282,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
#77
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,508,562 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.