Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18713064›Full record

ReviewFoodborne pathogens and disease2008

Methods and tools for comparative genomics of foodborne pathogens.

Arvind A Bhagwat, Medha Bhagwat

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Foodborne pathogens and disease, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Arvind A BhagwatProduce Quality and Safety Laboratory, Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350, USA. arvind.bhagwat@ars.usda.gov
Medha Bhagwat

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 OD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A comparison of genome sequences and of encoded proteins with the database of existing annotated sequences is a useful approach to understand the information at the genome level. Here we demonstrate the utility of several DNA and protein sequence comparison tools to interpret the information obtained from several genome projects. Comparisons are presented between closely related strains of Escherichia coli commensal isolates, different isolates of O157:H7, and Shigella spp. It is expected that comparative genome analysis will generate a wealth of data to compare pathogenic isolates with varying levels of pathogenicity, which in turn may reveal mechanisms by which the pathogen may adapt to a particular nutrient supply in certain foods. These genome sequence analysis tools will strengthen foodborne pathogen surveillance and subsequent risk assessment to enhance the safety of the food supply.

Indexed as

Food MicrobiologyGenome, BacterialComputational BiologyDNA, BacterialEscherichia coli K12Escherichia coli O157Escherichia coli ProteinsGenes, BacterialGenomicsSalmonella typhiSalmonella typhimuriumSequence Analysis, ProteinShigellaSoftwareDNA, BacterialEscherichia coli Proteins

Identifiers

PMID18713064
PMCPMC2614369

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.