Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 May 31;18(5):e0285881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285881

A novel home-use culture mechanism for identifying microbial load in urine samples

Monika Singh 1, Riya Sahai 1, Siddharth Pattnaik 1,*
Editor: Kwame Kumi Asare2
PMCID: PMC10231770  PMID: 37256899

Abstract

Diagnosing a urinary tract infection (UTI) is typically a clinical procedure involving multiple steps. The need to perform a test depends on the presence of relevant symptoms. Given the current pandemic situation, visiting a clinic may not be a preferable choice for many users. Many vulnerable groups of patients, namely, males with certain predispositions and pregnant women, may not present with symptoms of UTI and may go undiagnosed, which could give rise to a more complicated situation. So far, microbial cultures have been used as the gold standard for the diagnosis of an infection. However, performing microbial cultures currently requires trained professionals and laboratory grade equipment. Therefore, there is a need for a home-use culture kit that can serve this purpose. To our knowledge, no such kit exists. Here, we present a feasibility study of an affordable and easy-to-use home-based setup for quantifying bacterial load in a urine. We believe that such a system can be used by people at home to monitor recurrent UTI infections and also by physicians to remotely monitor and prescribe narrow-spectrum antibiotics for more effective treatment.

Introduction

Microbial cell culture is a versatile tool widely used to detect, identify, and quantify pathogenic loads for research and diagnostic purposes. Inoculating clinical specimens into a pathogen-specific culture media aids the visualisation of these pathogens to assess the microbial origin and severity of the disease.

Standard culture-based diagnostic methods can detect microbes in urine samples, stools, the genital tract, deep throat, and skin. An example of microbial infection is urinary tract infection, which affects the ureters, urethra, urinary bladder, or, in extreme cases, kidneys. Several risk factors are associated with uncomplicated UTIs. Women are known to be more prone to UTI due to an anatomical bias which makes them more susceptible [1]. The risk of occurrence of UTI also increases as a woman ages [2]. Additionally, pregnant women are usually at a much higher risk of contracting UTI due to shoter urethra and excretion of high amounts of proteins and sugars [36]. Apart from women, those with diabetes, elderly men, patients on immunosuppressants and infants are also prone to recurrent UTI [7,8]. UTI is acquired by up to 50–60% of individuals at least once in their lifetime [9]. If undiagnosed, UTI can complicate to a renal infection and therefore individuals at risk need to undergo regular screening to avoid further complications or progression to complicated UTIs. Furthermore, in people with recurrent UTIs, antimicrobial resistance may be a major concern due to exposure to broad spectrum antibiotics time and again. Therefore a precise diagnosis of the species is also required.

A common method of diagnosing UTI is using urinalysis dipsticks [10,11]. Predictive urinalysis is used most commonly to decide the treatment for uncomplicated UTIs. However, these tests provide inaccurate results nearly 33% of the time, and their sensitivity ranges from 23–95.6%, depending on the type of patient [12,13]. A significant limitation of this method is its inability to determine the causative agent, which may lead to the prescription of an incorrect treatment strategy that aggravates the development of multidrug-resistant bacterial species, further increasing the burden of antimicrobial resistance [14]. Urine cultures, in contrast, help identify the exact causative agent. Since UTI symptoms also coincide with the early symptoms of many sexually transmitted diseases and vaginal infections, urine cultures are necessary to differentiate UTIs from other related disorders [15]. For these reasons, urine culture is considered the ‘gold standard’ for diagnosing UTIs [16,17]. However, the traditional way of performing a microbial culture requires skilled technicians and considerable time (around 48 hours) for results to reach the patient.

Certain commercial products have tried to alleviate this cumbersome traditional process for instance dip-slides [18]. However, dip-slides incompletely tackle this problem since the samples need to be shipped back to the laboratory for colony counting and pathogen identification. In addition, these tests are designed for a midstream sample and hence require volumes in the range of 50–60 mL. Therefore, there is a need for an easy-to-use home based culturing mechanism which is user-friendly as well as accurate enough to be used by physicians.

This study presents a novel home-based method for culturing and detecting microbes. In this study, we focused on microbes causing UTIs, specifically Escherichia Coli to demonstrate the dynamic nature of this system regarding microbes and culture media. Our primary goal was to design a system derived from the dipstick format and integrate it with a culture medium, which can also be extended to other cultures and infections. We first found that microbes did not need to be spread on top in order to be cultured and could grow at the bottom of the agar plates. Such an observation has not been shown before. We also found that the setup conceived through this work could be used to deliver urine samples to the culture media without the need of pipetting it on the media and spreading it making it a more user-friendly and less technically challenging workflow. In addition, we found that the system could be used to culture bacteria at room temperature which makes it a great option for home use.

Materials and methods

Bacterial cell culture

The E. coli strain K-12 was used in this study. A single colony was inoculated to obtain uniform growth. To isolate pink colonies, 10 μL of the culture was spread on a MacConkey agar plate. For all experiments, pink colonies were selected from the plate and grown in a 600 mL Luria Bertani (LB) medium. The cultures were incubated in a shaker incubator maintained at 37°C with rotation at 180 rpm. The culture was monitored every 2 h until an optical density (OD) of approximately 0.65–0.75 was achieved. Optical density was measured in triplicates. To compare the OD values, sterile blank LB solution was incubated under similar conditions. This was used as blank for all measurements. For all experiments, a blank plate and a plate with the blank solution were incubated along with the different experimental setups to ensure the sterility of the incubator and culture media.

Culture media preparation

For all experiments with E. Coli, three different agar media were used: Luria Bertani (LB) agar (M1151, HiMedia, USA), MacConkey agar (M7408, Millipore, USA), and HiChrome Agar (M1353R, HiMedia, USA). For preparing the LB agar. For the preparation of MacConkey Agar, 30 gm of the agar was mixed with 600 mL distilled water. For the preparation of HiChrome Agar, 34.08 gm was mixed in 600 mL distilled water. All the agar media and liquid cultures were autoclaved at 121°C and 15 psi for 30 min.

Membrane selection

For all experiments with membranes, Whatman Grade 470 was used to deliver the sample to agar media. This was selected based on the pore size of the membrane. Before integrating the membrane into the experiment it was washed thoroughly with 70% ethanol, followed by washing with distilled water.

Image capturing and analysis

All cultured plates were imaged using an in-built phone camera. A customised LED-mounted translucent light diffuser setup (designed for home use) was used to capture images of the cultured plates (Fig 1B). Images were captured using iPhone 12. The images were captured at an exposure of 1/875s and ISO 32. Colonies were counted manually using OpenCFU 3.0 [19]. OpenCFU is an open source software for counting cell colonies or any other circular object.No post-capture changes were applied to the images before processing with OpenCFUs. The images were processed in a jpeg format. A circular region of interest (ROI) was defined in the software with a “regular” threshold since the colonies had a darker appearance (red) compared to the medium (white). OpenCFU returns results in the form of x/y where x is the number of valid colonies and y is the total number of circular objects captured. For consistency, only the x value from all the images were taken ahead for statistical analysis. The size of colonies for detection was set to 4 since in our case the colonies formed were smaller and setting a higher threshold led to missing more positive colonies. The radius was auto-set by OpenCFU.

Fig 1. Summary of experimental design and imaging setup.

Fig 1

Illustration of experimental design to generate serial dilutions and of different application methods (a). Schematic of the imaging set up used for capturing images of the cultured plates using a mobile phone (b).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 9. For all groups of experiments, an unpaired, non-parametric t-test (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) was performed to compare the cumulative distributions and determine the p-value. Results were considered statistically significant at a p-value of 0.1 and a 90% statistical significance.

Results

Microbial growth is unaffected by the location of the culture application

Since the design of our system was dependent on the delivery of the sample from the bottom to avoid any contamination from air or external sources, we aimed to prove that culturing bacteria below an agar medium can be used to estimate the bacterial load. In addition, we checked whether sensitivity was maintained in terms of colony density between the two methods. To achieve this, we diluted the cultured bacterial media and compared the top streaking method with the bottom application. The bottom application was performed in two ways: by streaking and pouring the culture media. In both cases, agar was placed after the culture was applied to the plate (Fig 1A).

We streaked the culture on top of the Luria Bertani (LB) agar plates as a control to ascertain that there was no contamination. For the initial run, MacConkey agar plates were used because they are commonly used to diagnose UTIs [20]. Interestingly, we found that the dilutions were visibly distinct from one another in all different setups (Fig 2A).

Fig 2. Growth of E.coli on MacConkey agar delivered as per experimental design.

Fig 2

Growth of cultured E.coli on MacConkey agar applied using various methods i.e. top streak, bottom streak and bottom drop and over serial dilutions (a). Comparison of CFU/ml obtained from different application methods and using different quantification methods. CFU/ml was significantly different (p<0.1) between all dilutions for both the quantification methods as well as for all methods of application. CFU/ml calculated manually and by OpenCFU were not significantly different (p>0.1).

For quantification, we selected dilutions where distinct colonies could be counted: 1:105, 1:106, and 1:109. Interestingly, we found that the number of colonies was also similar in all methods of sample application (Fig 2B), indicating that culture grown below an agar medium has similar sensitivity and performance as the canonical culture application. In addition, manual counting and OpenCFU-based quantification yielded similar results (Fig 2B).

We then examined whether our observations were media-specific. To assess this, we chose HiChrome chromogenic agar media, a commonly used growth medium for diagnosing the causative agent of UTI. The experimental setup for this growth medium was similar to that shown in Fig 1A. With the chromogenic agar media, we replicated the observations with MacConkey agar (S1A and S1B Fig), indicating that the bottom culture application method is also true for different types of agar media.

Membrane-mediated bottom delivery performs similar to direct application

In a home-use setup, pipetting a fixed volume of liquid onto or below the agar medium is usually not feasible. Therefore, we investigated whether a membrane-mediated delivery could solve this issue. For this purpose, we developed the system shown in Fig 3A, where the membrane jutting out of the Petri dish was used to deliver the sample to the agar media.

Fig 3. Membrane based culture delivery and corresponding growth of E. coli at different temperatures in MacConkey agar.

Fig 3

Schematic of the membrane-based delivery apparatus (a). Growth of cultured E. coli on MacConkey agar at 37℃ for 16 hours and at 25℃ for 30 hours with the sample delivered using the membrane (b). Comparison of CFU obtained manually for both temperature conditions. CFU was significantly different (p<0.1) between all dilutions in which colonies could be counted for both the conditions except between 1:105 and 1:106 at 25℃ (p = 0.5). CFU calculated for both conditions were not significantly different in any dilution (p>0.1).

The protruding end of the membrane was dipped in bacteria-containing media for 15 s. We examined the setup using different agar media to establish the robustness of this method. Similar culture dilutions were used in the previous experiments. We observed a visible gradient in the colony count for each dilution in all the different agar media used (Figs 3B and S2A).

Since in this setup the native culture, 1:103, and 1:105 dilutions developed dense colonies, we could not consider these concentrations for further quantification. The computed number of colonies was greater than in the previous experimental designs discussed since a greater culture volume was being delivered to the sample pad. Hence, we demonstrated that membrane-mediated sample delivery works equally well with the top or bottom application of the culture without affecting the sensitivity of the entire system.

Membrane-delivered microbial samples can be cultured at room temperature

To facilitate the use of the system at home, cultures needed to be grown at room temperature. Therefore, we investigated the performance of the membrane-based delivery mechanism at room temperature. The aim was to determine the earliest time point at which distinct colonies were visible. We found that colonies were visible within 36 h of the sample application. Interestingly, we discovered that at 36 h, the colonies obtained were similar in number to those cultured at 37°C for 16 h, indicating that 36 h is probably long enough for any bacterial load to manifest. However, we found that at lower temperatures, the difference between dilutions 1:105 and 1:106 (although existent) was not as statistically significant as the difference obtained by growing the culture at 37°C. This could imply that this system is slightly less sensitive than growth at higher temperatures and may have to be tweaked accordingly. It is also possible that a larger number of replicates may overcome this variation.

Discussion

In this study, we present a novel system to visualise and quantify the bacterial load in urine samples at home to detect and identify UTI-related pathogens. To the best of our knowledge, such a system does not exist for the diagnosis and management of UTIs.

Although the results presented through this study validate the accuracy of CFU measurement using the home-use system, there are some limitations which need to be kept in view. The system presented consistent results in spiked urine and cultured bacteria. However, it needs to be validated with clinical samples, which will be the scope of a future study. It is possible that the sensitivity observed may be different, in which case the composition of the culture media may need to be adjusted. Our results indicated that the sensitivity of the assay varied slightly when cultured at different temperatures namely 25℃ and 37℃. Therefore the CFU/ml to determine a cut-off for positive or negative diagnosis may vary from the laboratory standard and will have to be established as part of a clinical trial. Additionally, we assume that the room temperature is 25℃. While this is the commonly accepted standard, practically homes may have varying temperatures based on the external temperature or usage of temperature modulating mechanisms. Such considerations would have to be taken into account when designing the product for usage at home and the results may vary slightly based on the actual room temperature. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the hygienic disposal of culture plates in home-use scenarios. However, this can be solved operationally by providing a bag for safe disposal or a tube of bleach that can be applied once the results have been secured.

As compared to existing diagnostic techniques for UTI, we believe that the system proposed through this work provides a more specific, sensitive and easy to use design which can be used at home. The design of the proposed diagnostic system is such that it does not need trained professionals unlike canonical culturing protocols. In addition, compared to the time taken by currently available culturing methods, we believe that the proposed mechanism can be performed in a much shorter time. While it may be argued that urine dipsticks work in the shortest possible time, the curtailing of reading time comes at the cost of specificity to species detection and sensitivity of the colony forming units per mL. This may cause urine dipsticks to return more false negative results than can be accepted as has been reported by previous works as well. Table 1 shows a comparison of urine dipstick, canonical culture techniques and the novel technique proposed based on multiple factors.

Table 1. Comparison between the novel home based culture method, traditional microbial cultures and urine dipstick.

Novel home use culture method Traditional microbial cultures Urine dipstick
Type of detection Culture-based Culture-based Colorimetric
Time to result 24h 48h 3–5 min
Specificity to bacterial species Yes Yes No
Can differentiate bacterial species Depends on agar used Depends on agar used No
Requires specialised equipment No Yes No
Requires trained personnel No Yes No
Sensitivity <10 CFU/mL <10 CFU/mL 104−105 CFU/mL

We foresee many potential applications for such home-use systems. For instance, certain groups of patients who are more vulnerable to UTI or are at risk of asymptomatic UTI can keep these at home and monitor the presence or absence of infection regularly. The interface can be made following a Stackelberg game approach with a monitoring on the participation of the users [20]. In the case of an infection, the results can be shared with the respective physician. The entire sharing platform can be secured using the BSIF system [21]. As an extension, the results from this system can be used by physicians to remotely identify the causative agent, assess the microbial load, and suggest the most effective treatment [22,23] (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Flowchart of putative home usage of the membrane-based delivery system.

Fig 4

A representative flow chart of the interaction between the user and the physician with the membrane-based delivery system aiding the diagnosis and intervention process.

Antibiotic resistance in uropathogens has been widely studied and is a concern [2426]. Since our system can help in identifying the exact species that cause infection, it can be used to prescribe species-specific antibiotics. This would help reduce the burden of antibiotic resistance, preventing the development of multidrug-resistant pathogens, which would be especially useful in patients with recurrent UTIs.

As a primary goal, we have also demonstrated that bottom culture is feasible and the number of colonies formed is comparable to that of a standard top streak. Recently, many tests have been based on analysing dried urine samples, where the samples can be transported on a filter card [27]. One of our future aims is to study the efficacy of this system with dried urine samples on a filter card. A comparative analysis of the microbial load in liquid and dried urine samples may be worthwhile to make this system more beneficial. Future studies will also focus on a mobile application-based system that can be used to quantify the microbial load and determine the severity of infections.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we present a microbial load monitoring setup which can be used to extrapolate the CFU/ml in a given urine sample without the hassle of using canonical culture methodology or apparatus. We show that the system can be reliably used to measure colony count even at room temperature and therefore is suitable to be at home. Additionally, because the system does not require samples to be applied directly, we believe this is a more hygienic mechanism since it avoids spillage or direct contact with the user. We believe that such a system can be used to identify the bacterial species and prescribe narrow spectrum antibiotics in cases of recurrent infections. Future research work will focus on using this system in a clinical setup where two groups, one using the proposed system and one getting diagnosed by a clinic, will be compared. It would be interesting to see if the two methods can be used interchangeably. We will also be conducting additional clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of this home-use culture mechanism in prescribing antibiotics. This would be helpful in establishing the efficacy of this system with respect to prevention of antimicrobial resistance. Parallely, we would also be interested to investigate the probable use of this system to diagnose fungal infections.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Growth of E.coli on HiChrome UTI agar delivered as per experimental design.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Membrane based culture delivery and corresponding growth of E.coli at different temperatures in HiChrome UTI agar.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Medina M, Castillo-Pino E. An introduction to the epidemiology and burden of urinary tract infections. Vol. 11, Therapeutic Advances in Urology. SAGE Publications Inc.; 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.de Vasconcelos-Pereira EF, Figueiró-Filho EA, de Oliveira VM, Fernandes ACO, Fé CSM de, Coelho LR, et al. Urinary tract infection in high risk pregnant women. Rev Patol Trop. 2013;42(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Al-Haddad AM. Urinary tract infection among pregnant women in Al-Mukalla district, Yemen. East Mediterr Heal J. 2005;11(3). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Parveen K, Momen A, Arzumath A, Begum, Begum M. Prevalence Of Urinary Tract Infection During Pregnancy. J Dhaka Natl Med Coll Hosp. 2012;17. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tamalli M, Sangar B, Alghazal MA. Urinary tract infection during pregnancy at Al-khoms. Int J Med Med Sci. 2013;3:455–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stk S, Ranjan A. Prevalence of UTI among Pregnant Women and Its Complications in Newborns. Indian J Pharm Pract. 2018;10. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sobel J, Fisher J, Kauffman C, Newman C. Candida Urinary Tract Infections–Epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(Suppl 6): S433–6. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hollenbach E. To treat or not to treat—Critically ill patients with candiduria. Mycoses. 2008;51(Suppl 2):12–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Storme O., Tirán Saucedo J., Garcia-Mora A., Dehesa-Dávila M., Naber K. G., Risk factors and predisposing conditions for urinary tract infection. Ther. Adv. Urol. 11, 1756287218814382 (2019). doi: 10.1177/1756287218814382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Queremel Milani D. A., Jialal I., Urinalysis, in StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing, 2022). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Whiting P, Westwood M, Watt I, Cooper J. Kleijnen J. Rapid tests and urine sampling techniques for the diagnosis of systematic review. 2005;13:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mambatta A. K., Jayarajan J., Rashme V. L., Harini S., Menon S., Kuppusamy J., Reliability of dipstick assay in predicting urinary tract infection. J. Family Med. Prim. Care. 4, 265–268 (2015). doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.154672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pels RJ, Bor DH, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Lawrence RS. Dipstick Urinalysis Screening of Asymptomatic Adults for Urinary Tract Disorders: II. Bacteriuria. JAMA. 1989;262(9): 1220–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Flores-Mireles A. L., Walker J. N., Caparon M., Hultgren S. J., Urinary tract infections: Epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 269–284 (2015). doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gupta K., Grigoryan L., Trautner B., Urinary tract infection. Ann. Intern. Med., ITC49. 167, ITC49–ITC64 (2017). doi: 10.7326/AITC201710030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Carter C., Stallworth J., Holleman Chapter R. 40, Urinary tract disorders, in Textbook of Family Medicine, ed. 8, Rakel R. E, Rakel D. P., Eds. (W. B. Saunders, 2012), pp. 899–927. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sinawe H., Casadesus D., Urine culture, in StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing, 2022). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Naylor G. R., Guttmann D., The dip-slide: A modified dip-inoculum transport medium for the laboratory diagnosis of infections of the urinary tract. J. Hyg. (Lond). 65, 367–371 (1967). doi: 10.1017/s0022172400045885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Geissmann Q (2013) OpenCFU, a New Free and Open-Source Software to Count Cell Colonies and Other Circular Objects. PLoS ONE 8(2): e54072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pawlick J. and Zhu Q., "A Stackelberg game perspective on the conflict between machine learning and data obfuscation," 2016 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2016, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang W. et al., "BSIF: Blockchain-Based Secure, Interactive, and Fair Mobile Crowdsensing," in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 3452–3469, Dec. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang Y. et al., "Mixed Game-Based AoI Optimization for Combating COVID-19 With AI Bots," in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 3122–3138, Nov. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wang W., Srivastava G., Lin J. C. -W, Yang Y, Alazab Mand Gadekallu T. R., "Data Freshness Optimization Under CAA in the UAV-Aided MECN: A Potential Game Perspective," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ahmed S. S., Shariq A., Alsalloom A. A., Babikir I. H., Alhomoud B. N., Uropathogens and their antimicrobial resistance patterns: Relationship with urinary tract infections. Int. J. Health Sci. (Qassim). 13, 48–55 (2019). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Paul R., State of the globe: Rising antimicrobial resistance of pathogens in urinary tract infection. J. Glob. Infect. Dis. 10, 117–118 (2018). doi: 10.4103/jgid.jgid_104_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mortazavi-Tabatabaei S. A. R., Ghaderkhani J., Nazari A., Sayehmiri K., Sayehmiri F., Pakzad I., Pattern of antibacterial resistance in urinary tract infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Prev. Med. 10, 169 (2019). doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_419_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Newman M., Curran D. A., Reliability of a dried urine test for comprehensive assessment of urine hormones and metabolites. BMC Chem. 15, 18 (2021). doi: 10.1186/s13065-021-00744-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Thippa Reddy Gadekallu

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

6 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-22330A novel home-use culture mechanism for identifying microbial load in urine samplesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pattnaik,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The authors have to address the comments from the reviewers carefully. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thippa Reddy Gadekallu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this work, the author proposed a novel home-use culture mechanism for identifying microbial load in urine samples. The comments are listed as follows:

1. The contribution should be summarized in several sentences in brief, which can help the reader better understand the significance of this paper.

2. The existing works should be summarized and presented with the time or logic order rather than the direct illustration, the reviewer thinks that one table for the current efforts comparison may be better.

3. What are the shortcomings or research gaps for the current related work? I think the authors should highlight them at the end of each subsection of the related work section.

4. Where is the source of the adopted data? Please add some explanations.

5. What are the detailed parameter settings for the adopted neural networks? The authors should add more details to the manuscript.

6. To broaden the scope of this paper, the authors should refer to some papers. For example, AoI optimization in the UAV-aided traffic monitoring network under attack: A Stackelberg game viewpoint; BSIF: Blockchain-based Secure, Interactive, and Fair Mobile Crowdsensing;

Mixed Game-based AoI Optimization for Combating COVID-19 with AI Bots; Data Freshness Optimization Under CAA in the UAV-Aided MECN: A Potential Game Perspective.

7. This paper needs to be carefully proofed and polished before being accepted.

Reviewer #2: The work is interesting and scientifically good. However, the structure of the article should be redesigned

1)The abstract should focus on problem and how it is solved.

2)The introduction part requires related and motivation.

3)The methodology must be explained in detail and the author should specify how their approach is different.

4)The results should be compared with existing works.

5)The threats to validity must also be present in detail

6)The conclusion and the future work should be presented in detail.

Deep neural networks to predict diabetic retinopathy , be used to modify the structure of the paper.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 31;18(5):e0285881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285881.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Dec 2022

Dear Professor Gadekallu,

Thank you so much for giving us an opportunity to make revision to our manuscript. We are really grateful to all the reviewers and editors for their comments and support. We have now addressed the major comments raised by the reviewers and have edited our manuscript accordingly. The changes have been tracked in the revision that we are submitting. In addition, we are also submitting a clean copy of the manuscript with the changes made. We hope that the changes are satisfactory to the editors. Below is a detailed description of each comment and our response to that:

Reviewer #1: In this work, the author proposed a novel home-use culture mechanism for identifying microbial load in urine samples. The comments are listed as follows:

1. The contribution should be summarized in several sentences in brief, which can help the reader better understand the significance of this paper. - We are grateful to the reviewer for this comment. We have changed the last paragraph of our introduction in order to summarize the findings of this paper. We believe that this fits well with the flow of the introduction.

2. The existing works should be summarized and presented with the time or logic order rather than the direct illustration, the reviewer thinks that one table for the current efforts comparison may be better.

3. What are the shortcomings or research gaps for the current related work? I think the authors should highlight them at the end of each subsection of the related work section. - We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added the shortcomings of the existing works and have highlighted them in the introduction for reference. In addition, we have also added a detailed description of the research gaps of our work in the discussion section.

4. Where is the source of the adopted data? Please add some explanations. - We are grateful to the reviewer for pointing this out. We have added the source of the data used in the materials and methods and have also explained the parameters.

5. What are the detailed parameter settings for the adopted neural networks? The authors should add more details to the manuscript. - Again, we are thankful for this comment. We agree that the parameter settings were not clearly explained and we have added the setting details in the materials and methods.

6. To broaden the scope of this paper, the authors should refer to some papers. For example, AoI optimization in the UAV-aided traffic monitoring network under attack: A Stackelberg game viewpoint; BSIF: Blockchain-based Secure, Interactive, and Fair Mobile Crowdsensing;

Mixed Game-based AoI Optimization for Combating COVID-19 with AI Bots; Data Freshness Optimization Under CAA in the UAV-Aided MECN: A Potential Game Perspective. - We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. While we have used the papers to structure the manuscript now, we feel that the papers cannot be referred to since the scope of these works are very different from our current research.

7. This paper needs to be carefully proofed and polished before being accepted.

Reviewer #2: The work is interesting and scientifically good. However, the structure of the article should be redesigned

1)The abstract should focus on the problem and how it is solved. - We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that the abstract in our initial submission was limited. However, we have made it more elaborate to highlight the problem and how our proposed method alleviates the issue.

2)The introduction part requires related and motivation. - We are thankful to the reviewer for suggesting this. We have edited the paragraphs to be more connected and we hope that the different motivations are conveyed clearly by each paragraph.

3)The methodology must be explained in detail and the author should specify how their approach is different. - We have added more details to the methodology and we hope the details suffice to understand the methods used in quantification of the paper.

4)The results should be compared with existing works. - We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. The results are quite unique in their own self. However, as suggested by reviewer 1, we have added a comparison table in the discussion section comparing existing works and our work. We have also added a detailed explanation of the same.

5)The threats to validity must also be present in detail - We understand the reviewer’s concerns. We have added the threats to validity in the discussion section in more detail and have also suggested what further studies need to be conducted to invalidate those threats to the work here.

6)The conclusion and the future work should be presented in detail. - Once again, we are grateful to the reviewer for pointing this out. We have edited the conclusion section to bring forth the future prospects of this system as well as plausible extension of the work described.

Deep neural networks to predict diabetic retinopathy , be used to modify the structure of the paper.

Once again, we are very grateful to you for your kind consideration and to the reviewers for diligently pointing out important gaps in our manuscript. We hope you find everything in order.

Yours sincerely,

Siddharth Pattnaik

Corresponding author.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Kwame Kumi Asare

3 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-22330R1A novel home-use culture mechanism for identifying microbial load in urine samplesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pattnaik,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Authors have to carefully address all the concerns raised by the reviewers.   Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2023 11:59 PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kwame Kumi Asare, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this work, the author proposed a novel home-use culture mechanism for identifying microbial load in urine samples. The comments are listed as follows:

1. The contribution should be summarized in several sentences in brief, which can help the reader better understand the significance of this paper.

2. The existing works should be summarized and presented with the time or logic order rather than the direct illustration, the reviewer thinks that one table for the current efforts comparison may be better.

3. What are the shortcomings or research gaps for the current related work? I think the authors should highlight them at the end of each subsection of the related work section.

4. Where is the source of the adopted data? Please add some explanations.

5. What are the detailed parameter settings for the adopted neural networks? The authors should add more details to the manuscript.

6. To broaden the scope of this paper, the authors should refer to some papers. For example, AoI optimization in the UAV-aided traffic monitoring network under attack: A Stackelberg game viewpoint; BSIF: Blockchain-based Secure, Interactive, and Fair Mobile Crowdsensing;

Mixed Game-based AoI Optimization for Combating COVID-19 with AI Bots; Data Freshness Optimization Under CAA in the UAV-Aided MECN: A Potential Game Perspective.

7. This paper needs to be carefully proofed and polished before being accepted.

Reviewer #2: The work is interesting and scientifically good. However, the structure of the article should be redesigned

1)The abstract should focus on problem and how it is solved.

2)The introduction part requires related and motivation.

3)The methodology must be explained in detail and the author should specify how their approach is different.

4)The results should be compared with existing works.

5)The threats to validity must also be present in detail

6)The conclusion and the future work should be presented in detail.

Deep neural networks to predict diabetic retinopathy , be used to modify the structure of the paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 31;18(5):e0285881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285881.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Apr 2023

Dear Professor Asare,

Thank you so much for giving us an opportunity to make revision to our manuscript. We are really grateful to all the reviewers and editors for their comments and support. We have now addressed the major comments raised by the reviewers and have edited our manuscript accordingly. The changes have been tracked in the revision that we are submitting. In addition, we are also submitting a clean copy of the manuscript with the changes made. We hope that the changes are satisfactory to the editors. Below is a detailed description of each comment and our response to that:

Reviewer #1: The authors have not well addressed all my comments, some important references are missing. The authors should refer to the previous comments for paper improvement again.

We are grateful to the reviewer for their comments. We have now added the references as suggested by the reviewer in their previous comments. We hope that the reviewer finds the references in place.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the suggestions provided in the previous review. I recommend the article to be accepted

We are really grateful to the reviewer for their previous comments and for recommending our article for publication.

Once again, we are very grateful to you for your kind consideration and to the reviewers for diligently pointing out important gaps in our manuscript. We hope you find everything in order.

Yours sincerely,

Siddharth Pattnaik

Corresponding author.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_1.docx

Decision Letter 2

Kwame Kumi Asare

4 May 2023

A novel home-use culture mechanism for identifying microbial load in urine samples

PONE-D-22-22330R2

Dear Dr. Siddharth Pattnaik,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kwame Kumi Asare, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: all comments have been well addressed, so it can be accepted. all comments have been well addressed, so it can be accepted.all comments have been well addressed, so it can be accepted.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Kwame Kumi Asare

9 May 2023

PONE-D-22-22330R2

A novel home-use culture mechanism for identifying microbial load in urine samples

Dear Dr. Pattnaik:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kwame Kumi Asare

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Growth of E.coli on HiChrome UTI agar delivered as per experimental design.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Membrane based culture delivery and corresponding growth of E.coli at different temperatures in HiChrome UTI agar.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES