Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15084509›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2004

Intraspecific diversity of Yersinia pestis.

Andrey P Anisimov, Luther E Lindler, Gerald B Pier

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 134 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing 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

134 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Draft genome sequences of evolutionary distantMicrobiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Multiplex PCR System for the Diagnosis of Plague.Current molecular medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Yersinia pestis ΔApplied and environmental microbiology · 2023
    Article
  17. Zoonoses (Shannon, Ireland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

74 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrey P AnisimovDepartment of Infectious Diseases, State Research Center for Applied Microbiology, 142279 Obolensk, Serpukhov District, Moscow Region, Russia.
Luther E Lindler
Gerald B Pier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increased interest in the pathogenic potential of Yersinia pestis has emerged because of the potential threats from bioterrorism. Pathogenic potential is based on genetic factors present in a population of microbes, yet most studies evaluating the role of specific genes in virulence have used a limited number of strains. For Y. pestis this issue is complicated by the fact that most strains available for study in the Americas are clonally derived and thus genetically restricted, emanating from a strain of Y. pestis introduced into the United States in 1902 via marine shipping and subsequent spread of this strain throughout North and South America. In countries from the former Soviet Union (FSU), Mongolia, and China there are large areas of enzootic foci of Y. pestis infection containing genetically diverse strains that have been intensely studied by scientists in these countries. However, the results of these investigations are not generally known outside of these countries. Here we describe the variety of methods used in the FSU to classify Y. pestis strains based on genetic and phenotypic variation and show that there is a high level of diversity in these strains not reflected by ones obtained from sylvatic areas and patients in the Americas.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationAmericasAnimalsAsia, CentralEurope, EasternHumansPlaguePlague VaccineVirulenceYersinia pestisPlague Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID15084509
PMCPMC387406

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.