Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Strategy for Detection of Viruses in Groundwater by PCR

Open access
Abbaszadegan, Morteza, Stewart, Peter, LeChevallier, Mark·1999·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

We evaluated the use of the PCR for detection of enteric viruses in groundwater. To do this, we used an improved sample-processing technique and a large-volume amplification protocol. The objective of this study was to use advanced molecular techniques to develop a rapid and simple method which can be used by the water industry for detection of viral contamination in a variety of water samples. The strategy described here fulfills the water industry’s need for a rapid, reliable, easily performed method for analyzing groundwater for virus contamination. Viruses were detected after concentration from at least 400 gallons (1,512 liters) of water by a filter adsorption and elution method, which resulted in a concentrate containing viruses. A total of 150 samples were analyzed by performing cell culture assays for enteroviruses and by performing reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) analyses for enteroviruses, hepatitis A virus, and rotavirus. Thirteen samples (8.7%) produced cellular cytopathic effects when the Buffalo green monkey cell line was used. When primers specific for enteroviruses were used in RT-PCR, 40 of 133 samples (30.1%) tested positive for the presence of enterovirus RNA. When hepatitis A virus-specific primers were used, 12 of 139 samples (8.6%) were considered positive for the presence of hepatitis A viral RNA. The RT-PCR analysis performed with rotavirus-specific primers identified 18 of 130 samples (13.8%) that were positive for rotavirus RNA sequences. Our sample-processing technique and large-volume PCR protocol (reaction volume, 300 μl) resulted in sufficient removal or dilution of inhibitors so that more than 95% of the samples could be assayed by PCR. Because of its sensitivity for detecting viral nucleic acid sequences, PCR analysis should produce more positive results than cell culture analysis. Since either cell culture analysis or PCR can reveal only a “snapshot” of the quality of the groundwater being sampled, PCR seems to be a desirable rapid initial screening tool.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.65.2.444-449.1999

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Abbaszadegan, M., Stewart, P., & LeChevallier, M.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
1999-02
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
444-449
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2104607395
Cited by
191
References
1
FWCI
18.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Strategy for Detection of Viruses in Groundwater by PCR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.65.2.444-449.1999
The paper
Abbaszadegan, M., Stewart, P., & LeChevallier, M. (1999). A Strategy for Detection of Viruses in Groundwater by PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.2.444-449.1999

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.