ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2009
Chlamydia trachomatis laboratory strains versus recent clinical isolates: implications for routine microbicide testing.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2009. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chlamydia trachomatis In Vivo to In Vitro Transition Reveals Mechanisms of Phase Variation and Down-Regulation of Virulence Factors.PloS one · 2015Article
- An automated image-based method for rapid analysis of Chlamydia infection as a tool for screening antichlamydial agents.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A topical microbicide that women can use to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is essential, and many microbicide candidates are being tested for activity against human immunodeficiency virus and other STDs, including Chlamydia trachomatis. Screening assays for assessing the activity of microbicides against C. trachomatis are typically done with laboratory-adapted strains, but it is possible that recent clinical isolates may have different susceptibilities to microbicides, as has been seen with Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Lactobacillus spp. (B. J. Moncla and S. L. Hillier, Sex. Transm. Dis. 32:491-494, 2005). We utilized three types of microbicides to help define this aspect of our assay to test microbicides against C. trachomatis in vitro. To simulate conditions of transmission, we used an assay that we previously developed in which we exposed chlamydial elementary bodies to microbicides prior to contact with epithelial cells. We first determined the toxicity of microbicides to the cells used to culture Chlamydia trachomatis in the assay and, if necessary, modified the assay to eliminate toxicity at the concentrations tested. We compared the sensitivities of recent clinical isolates of Chlamydia trachomatis versus laboratory strains of the same serovar and found major differences in sensitivity to nonoxynol-9 (non-9), but only minor differences were seen with the other microbicides. We thus conclude that when assessing activity of potential topical microbicides versus the obligate intracellular bacteria C. trachomatis, the use of recent clinical isolates may not be necessary to draw a conclusion about a microbicide's effectiveness. However, it is important to keep in mind that differences (like those seen with non-9) are possible and that clinical isolates could be included in later stages of testing.
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.