2012
DOI: 10.5808/gi.2012.10.4.249
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Fosmid Cloning Strategy for Detecting the Widest Possible Spectrum of Microbes from the International Space Station Drinking Water System

Abstract: In this study, fosmid cloning strategies were used to assess the microbial populations in water from the International Space Station (ISS) drinking water system (henceforth referred to as Prebiocide and Tank A water samples). The goals of this study were: to compare the sensitivity of the fosmid cloning strategy with that of traditional culture-based and 16S rRNA-based approaches and to detect the widest possible spectrum of microbial populations during the water purification process. Initially, microbes could… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The other two bands (~37-kb and ~3-kb) were parts of a ~40-kb insert restricted by NotI. Not1 restriction enzyme digestion of the fosmid DNA released and produced inserts that are more than 40 kb in size (Choi et al, 2012). The ~3-kb band was then extracted from the gel.…”
Section: Clone Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The other two bands (~37-kb and ~3-kb) were parts of a ~40-kb insert restricted by NotI. Not1 restriction enzyme digestion of the fosmid DNA released and produced inserts that are more than 40 kb in size (Choi et al, 2012). The ~3-kb band was then extracted from the gel.…”
Section: Clone Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The editorial committee of Genomics & Informatics has concluded that a substantial portion of the above article [1] was 'copied and pasted' from earlier publications without appropriate attribution. Although the plagiarized texts are detected only in the Introduction section [2], such a misconduct is unacceptable in a scientific writing.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%