ArticleMicrobes and infection2007
The chlamydial invasin-like protein gene conundrum.
Article in Microbes and infection, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Generation of Tetracycline and Rifamycin ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Variants of an ilp (invasin-like protein) gene have been identified previously in Chlamydia caviae and in Chlamydia suis. The C. caviae ilp gene is interrupted by two frame shift mutations while the C. suis gene is intact. Characterization of the ilp gene in C. caviae passaged minimally in vitro showed that the two frameshift mutations were present in the original isolates. The gentamicin protection assay was used to determine if E. coli bacteria expressing the intact C. suis ilp could adhere to or invade HEp-2 cells. While inv+ clones showed increased adherence and invasion, no increase in adherence or invasion was observed for ilp+ clones. However, these clones were found to produce detectable amounts of ilp transcript. In a 48 h time course of C. suis culture, ilp transcript was initially detected at 8 h, peaked at 16 h, and declined subsequently. Antibodies specifically recognizing the putative functional domain of Ilp failed to detect any ilp-specific gene product in either E. coli or C. suis cultures. These data suggest that ilp does not encode a functional protein and raise questions about how ilp was introduced and maintained in Chlamydia.
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.