ArticleJournal of microbiological methods2007
Rapid diagnostic thin section electron microscopy of bacterial endospores.
Article in Journal of microbiological methods, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic electron microscopy in human infectious diseases - Methods and applications.Journal of microscopy · 2025Review
- Visualization of SARS-CoV-2 particles in naso/oropharyngeal swabs by thin section electron microscopy.Virology journal · 2023Article
- Antibacterial activity of geraniin from sugar maple leaves: an ultrastructural study with the phytopathogenJournal of plant pathology : an international journal of the Italian Phytopathological Society · 2021Article
- Review
- Detection limit of negative staining electron microscopy for the diagnosis of bioterrorism-related micro-organisms.Journal of applied microbiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emerging infectious diseases such as SARS and the bioterror attacks with anthrax spores that occurred after September 11th, 2001 have highlighted the need to be better prepared for the detection and management of infectious pathogens that threaten public health. Negative staining electron microscopy is one method used to screen environmental and clinical samples for relevant infectious pathogens. Unfortunately, bacterial endospores, like those of Bacillus anthracis, are difficult to identify using this method because of their density that prevents imaging of structural details. Thin section electron microscopy would be an alternative method but this usually requires a few days for preparation and diagnosis. In the present paper we describe the development of a rapid thin section protocol, using mainly Bacillus subtilis spores as a model, which allows an unequivocal diagnosis of endospores within 2 h. The protocol involves chemical fixation assisted by heat or microwaves, rapid dehydration, embedding in the low-viscosity resin LR White and chemically enhanced polymerization. Structural preservation of spores is comparable to preservation after standard Epon embedding. Immunolabeling experiments using B. atrophaeus spores and a specific antibody suggest that the protocol preserves significant antigenicity for on-section immunocytochemistry and therefore offers the possibility for the strain typing of spores using specific antibodies. Further experiments with vegetative bacteria, viruses and cell cultures indicate that the rapid thin section protocol not only preserves spores but also other biological structures. Because of its universality and speed the described protocol complements negative staining electron microscopy as a front line method for the morphology-based diagnosis of pathogens in environmental and clinical samples.
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.