ArticleBMC genomics2007
Comparative genomic analysis of Tropheryma whipplei strains reveals that diversity among clinical isolates is mainly related to the WiSP proteins.
Article in BMC genomics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic strategy for the investigation of vaccines and drugs targeting bacteria.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Widespread colonization of the lung by Tropheryma whipplei in HIV infection.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2013Article
- Genome-scale diversity and niche adaptation analysis of Lactococcus lactis by comparative genome hybridization using multi-strain arrays.Microbial biotechnology · 2011Article
- Coxiella burnetii transcriptional analysis reveals serendipity clusters of regulation in intracellular bacteria.PloS one · 2010Article
- Genomic, proteomic, and transcriptomic analysis of virulent and avirulent Rickettsia prowazekii reveals its adaptive mutation capabilities.Genome research · 2010Article
- Crucial role for insertion sequence elements in Lactobacillus helveticus evolution as revealed by interstrain genomic comparison.Applied and environmental 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to analyze the genomic diversity of several Tropheryma whipplei strains by microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization. Fifteen clinical isolates originating from biopsy samples recovered from different countries were compared with the T. whipplei Twist strain. For each isolate, the genes were defined as either present or absent/divergent using the GACK analysis software. Genomic changes were then further characterized by PCR and sequencing.
resultsThe results revealed a limited genetic variation among the T. whipplei isolates, with at most 2.24% of the probes exhibiting differential hybridization against the Twist strain. The main variation was found in genes encoding the WiSP membrane protein family. This work also demonstrated a 19.2 kb-pair deletion within the T. whipplei DIG15 strain. This deletion occurs in the same region as the previously described large genomic rearrangement between Twist and TW08/27. Thus, this can be considered as a major hot-spot for intra-specific T. whipplei differentiation. Analysis of this deleted region confirmed the role of WND domains in generating T. whipplei diversity.
conclusionThis work provides the first comprehensive genomic comparison of several T. whipplei isolates. It reveals that clinical isolates originating from various geographic and biological sources exhibit a high conservation rate, indicating that T. whipplei rarely interacts with exogenous DNA. Remarkably, frequent inter-strain variations were dicovered that affected members of the WiSP family.
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.