ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2009
Comparison of probe hybridization array typing to multilocus sequence typing for pathogenic Escherichia coli.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009. 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.
- Distribution of Enteroinvasive and Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli Across Space and Time in Northwestern Ecuador.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2016Article
- Effects of selection pressure and genetic association on the relationship between antibiotic resistance and virulence in Escherichia coli.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2015Article
- High-throughput microarray technology in diagnostics of enterobacteria based on genome-wide probe selection and regression analysis.BMC genomics · 2010Article
- Evaluation of one- and two-color gene expression arrays for microbial comparative genome hybridization analyses in routine applications.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2010Article
- Prevalence of Haemophilus influenzae type b genetic islands among clinical and commensal H. influenzae and H. haemolyticus isolates.Journal of clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Probe hybridization array typing (PHAT) is a previously validated, high-throughput, highly discriminatory binary typing method based on the presence or absence of genetic material. To increase the utility of PHAT, we identified a refined PHAT probe set using 24 known and potential Escherichia coli virulence genes, by which groups similar to multilocus sequence typing (MLST) clonal groups (CGs) could be determined. We PHAT typed 1,132 E. coli isolates, representing at least 62 MLST CGs and diverse disease states, using a "library-on-a-slide" microarray format. Using 24 PHAT probes, all 62 MLST CGs in the representative E. coli collection were distinguished. For major CGs, PHAT correctly classified all sequence types within CG7 and CG17 but misclassified between one and four sequence types for CG13, CG14, CG23, CG38, and CG58, giving an overall sensitivity and specificity of 80.4 and 98.7%, respectively. After application of the PHAT classification to the whole collection, MLST validation of the PHAT probe classification resulted in sensitivities from 0.0 to 100.0% and specificities from 75.0 to 100.0% for individual CGs and an overall sensitivity and specificity of 64.7 and 88.3%, respectively. The refined PHAT probe set is capable of classifying isolates into groups in a manner similar to major clonal complexes of MLST, indicating coevolution between the chromosomal background and the flexible gene pool. Further refinement is needed to distinguish between closely related groups. For analysis of large bacterial collections, PHAT is a relatively time- and cost-efficient method and is ideal for a first level of analysis.
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.