Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14715765›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2004

Comparative analysis of multilocus sequence typing and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for characterizing Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from environmental and clinical sources.

Tamara Revazishvili, Mamuka Kotetishvili, O Colin Stine, Arnold S Kreger, J Glenn Morris, Alexander Sulakvelidze

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Molecular characterization ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Article
  3. Food science & nutrition · 2022
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tamara RevazishviliDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA.
Mamuka Kotetishvili
O Colin Stine
Arnold S Kreger
J Glenn Morris
Alexander Sulakvelidze

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One hundred seventy-five Listeria monocytogenes strains were characterized by serotyping, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) based on loci in actA, betL, hlyA, gyrB, pgm, and recA. One hundred twenty-two sequence types (STs) were identified by MLST based on allelic profiles of the four housekeeping genes (betL, gyrB, pgm, and recA), and 34 and 38 alleles were identified for hlyA and actA, respectively. Several actA and hlyA alleles appeared to be predominantly associated with clinical isolates. MLST differentiated most of the L. monocytogenes strains better than did PFGE, and the discriminating ability of PFGE was better than that of serotyping. Several strains with different serotypes were found, by MLST and PFGE, to have very closely related genetic backgrounds, which suggested possible "antigen switching" among them. MLST can be a useful typing tool for differentiating L. monocytogenes strains (including strains undistinguishable by PFGE typing and serotyping), and it may be of value during investigations of food-borne outbreaks of listeriosis.

Indexed as

Bacterial Typing TechniquesElectrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-FieldGenetic VariationHumansListeria monocytogenesSerotyping

Identifiers

PMID14715765
PMCPMC321703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.