Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Escherichia coli phylogenetic group determination and its application in the identification of the major animal source of fecal contamination

Open access
Carlos, Camila, Pires, Mathias M, Stoppe, Nancy C, Hachich, Elayse M, Sato, Maria IZ, Gomes, Tânia AT, Amaral, Luiz A, Ottoboni, Laura MM·2010·BMC Microbiology

Abstract

Background: Escherichia coli strains are commonly found in the gut microflora of warm-blooded animals. These strains can be assigned to one of the four main phylogenetic groups, A, B1, B2 and D, which can be divided into seven subgroups (A 0, A 1, B1, B2 2, B2 3, D 1 and D 2), according to the combination of the three genetic markers chuA, yjaA and DNA fragment TspE4.C2. Distinct studies have demonstrated that these phylo-groups differ in the presence of virulence factors, ecological niches and life-history. Therefore, the aim of this work was to analyze the distribution of these E. coli phylo-groups in 94 human strains, 13 chicken strains, 50 cow strains, 16 goat strains, 39 pig strains and 29 sheep strains and to verify the potential of this analysis to investigate the source of fecal contamination. Results: The results indicated that the distribution of phylogenetic groups, subgroups and genetic markers is non-random in the hosts analyzed. Strains from group B1 were present in all hosts analyzed but were more prevalent in cow, goat and sheep samples. Subgroup B2 3 was only found in human samples. The diversity and the similarity indexes have indicated a similarity between the E. coli population structure of human and pig samples and among cow, goat and sheep samples. Correspondence analysis using contingence tables of subgroups, groups and genetic markers frequencies allowed the visualization of the differences among animal samples and the identification of the animal source of an external validation set. The classifier tools Binary logistic regression and Partial least square -- discriminant analysis, using the genetic markers profile of the strains, differentiated the herbivorous from the omnivorous strains, with an average error rate of 17%. Conclusions: This is the first work, as far as we are aware, that identifies the major source of fecal contamination of a pool of strains instead of a unique strain. We concluded that the analysis of the E. coli population structure can be useful as a supplementary bacterial source tracking 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 · 10.1186/1471-2180-10-161

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
Carlos, C., Pires, M. M., Stoppe, N. C., Hachich, E. M., Sato, M. I., Gomes, T. A., Amaral, L. A., & Ottoboni, L. M.
Venue
BMC Microbiology
Published
2010-06-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
161-161
ISSN
1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136657042
Cited by
293
References
31
FWCI
6.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Escherichia coli phylogenetic group determination and its application in the identification of the major animal source of fecal contamination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2180-10-161
The paper
Carlos, C., Pires, M. M., Stoppe, N. C., Hachich, E. M., Sato, M. I., Gomes, T. A., Amaral, L. A., & Ottoboni, L. M. (2010). Escherichia coli phylogenetic group determination and its application in the identification of the major animal source of fecal contamination. BMC Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-10-161

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.