Actually we really didn’t see the first paper, if we know it we’ll definitely refer to it. However, we would only refer it for Shewanella. This species is somewhat difficult to culture. We detected out it in hospital, still not assure where it came from and whether our results were reliable. Now a previous paper had detected it by 16S method. That would greatly improve the credibility of our work. So if we would definitely refer to it if we were seeing it. However, we possibly would not refer it for DNA method or ICU cleaning since we should notice the details of research. This work used 16S method, quite different with our metagenomic method. And they did that for the surface sanitation, that quite different with our air sampling. Swab sampling has a very long history and had been written into an industrial standard. Our paper at start was doubt the existing industrial and hospital standards. Moreover, swabbing method could detect surface microbes easily, it never concerns with respiratory infection as our paper focus. And the filter paper method, especially with network consideration, is a new thing that totally different from using DNA method under an industrial standard. This paper worked for neonatal ICU, our paper was not just ICU, we concentrated on HAI study, that was the whole hospital environment. And our method was not just cleaning. We have a subsequent paper use a kind of photodynamic product in hospital to prevent airborne transmission, it’s not a cleaning regime. It is also a new thing to prevent airborne transmission. Surface sanitation generally not prevent airborne transmission since the primary source of which is patients and not contacted surface. And the percentage of the contribution of surface contact in HAI is not that high.
Another two papers mentioned by the comments still use 16S rRNA method, which is substantially different with our metagenomic sequencing.
Beside DNA method and ICU, here we have to emphasize where our idea and practices were come from. Our lab focuses on the second generation sequencing. From the very beginning, this technology never emphasized on the accuracy like that of Sanger sequencing. In contrast, it utilized the depth of sequencing to compensate for the local inaccuracy. Finally it still could get the accuracy like that of the Sanger sequencing and the cost was reduced exponentially. From the 30 billion US dollar of the Human Genome Project till today, just few thousands of dollar for a human whole genome sequencing. We have to attribute this to the next generation sequencing. We were deeply influenced by such idea, then worked out our metagenomic filter paper system write in the manuscript. This system quite different with the various designs of various sampling methods before since we consider the network distribution to compensate for local accuracy like that of the next generation sequencing. As our experience to deal with the hospital cooperation project. Simple operation is the only reason for the success of the network. It is still difficult for doctors or nurses in a hospital to prepare PBS. Some very simple operations in an academic lab become the jinx of the hospital supporting teams. This is the cause why we design the filter paper system, nothing is needed for the supporting team, and the samples can be mailed to far away lab. (Note, those sampling equipment with liquid inside is impossible to be mailed by air) With network distribution, our method will be better than most methods since it can use the network to compensate for accuracy. This is what we really hope to do.