ArticleClinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology2003
Characterization of the major antigenic protein 2 of Ehrlichia canis and Ehrlichia chaffeensis and its application for serodiagnosis of ehrlichiosis.
Article in Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progress and obstacles in vaccine development for the ehrlichioses.Expert review of vaccines · 2010Review
- Characterization of Anaplasma phagocytophilum major surface protein 5 and the extent of its cross-reactivity with A. marginale.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2007Article
- Identification of a glycosylated Ehrlichia canis 19-kilodalton major immunoreactive protein with a species-specific serine-rich glycopeptide epitope.Infection and immunity · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine monocytic ehrlichiosis, caused by Ehrlichia canis or Ehrlichia chaffeensis, can result in clinical disease in naturally infected animals. Coinfections with these agents may be common in certain areas of endemicity. Currently, a species-specific method for serological diagnosis of monocytic ehrlichiosis is not available. Previously, we developed two indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) using the major antigenic protein 2 (MAP2) of E. chaffeensis and E. canis. In this study, we further characterized the conservation of MAP2 among various geographic isolates of each organism and determined if the recombinant MAP2 (rMAP2) of E. chaffeensis would cross-react with E. canis-infected dog sera. Genomic Southern blot analysis using digoxigenin-labeled species-specific probes suggested that map2 is a single-copy gene in both Ehrlichia species. Sequences of the single map2 genes of seven geographically different isolates of E. chaffeensis and five isolates of E. canis are highly conserved among the various isolates of each respective ehrlichial species. ELISA and Western blot analysis confirmed that the E. chaffeensis rMAP2 failed to serologically differentiate between E. canis and E. chaffeensis infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.