Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18692404›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2008

Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry characterization of Escherichia coli and Shigella species.

Robert A Everley, Tiffany M Mott, Shane A Wyatt, Denise M Toney, Timothy R Croley

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Differentiation ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Rapid clinical bacteriology and its future impact.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2013
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

5 authors.

Robert A EverleyDivision of Consolidated Laboratory Services, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Department of Chemistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23219, USA.
Tiffany M Mott
Shane A Wyatt
Denise M Toney
Timothy R Croley

Funding

PHS HHS U90/CCU317014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid chromatography/quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometry (LC/QTOF MS) utilizing electrospray ionization was employed to monitor protein expression in Escherichia coli and Shigella organisms. Comparison with MALDI/TOF-MS revealed more proteins, particularly above 15 kDa. A combination of automated charge state deconvolution, spectral mirroring, and spectral subtraction was used to reveal subtle differences in the LC/MS data. Reproducible intact protein biomarker candidates were discovered based on their unique mass, retention time, and relative intensity. These marker candidates were implemented to differentiate closely related strain types, (e.g., two distinct isolates of E. coli O157:H7) and to correctly identify unknown pathogens. This LC/MS approach is less labor-intensive than pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, affords greater specificity than real-time PCR, and requires no primers or antibodies. Additionally, this approach would be beneficial during outbreaks of foodborne disease or bioterrorism investigations by complementing methods typically used in diagnostic microbiology laboratories.

Indexed as

Bacterial Typing TechniquesAnimalsBacterial ProteinsBiomarkersChromatography, LiquidEscherichia coliMolecular WeightReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityShigellaSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationTime FactorsBacterial ProteinsBiomarkers

Identifiers

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.