Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19432966›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2009

Evaluation of high efficiency gene knockout strategies for Trypanosoma cruzi.

Dan Xu, Cecilia Pérez Brandán, Miguel Angel Basombrío, Rick L Tarleton

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dan XuDepartment of Cellular Biology and Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. dxu@uga.edu
Cecilia Pérez Brandán
Miguel Angel Basombrío
Rick L Tarleton
National University of Salta · ARUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI0449790
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrypanosoma cruzi, a kinetoplastid protozoan parasite that causes Chagas disease, infects approximately 15 million people in Central and South America. In contrast to the substantial in silico studies of the T. cruzi genome, transcriptome, and proteome, only a few genes have been experimentally characterized and validated, mainly due to the lack of facile methods for gene manipulation needed for reverse genetic studies. Current strategies for gene disruption in T. cruzi are tedious and time consuming. In this study we have compared the conventional multi-step cloning technique with two knockout strategies that have been proven to work in other organisms, one-step-PCR- and Multisite Gateway-based systems.

resultsWhile the one-step-PCR strategy was found to be the fastest method for production of knockout constructs, it does not efficiently target genes of interest using gene-specific sequences of less than 80 nucleotides. Alternatively, the Multisite Gateway based approach is less time-consuming than conventional methods and is able to efficiently and reproducibly delete target genes.

conclusionUsing the Multisite Gateway strategy, we have rapidly produced constructs that successfully produce specific gene deletions in epimastigotes of T. cruzi. This methodology should greatly facilitate reverse genetic studies in T. cruzi.

Indexed as

AnimalsGene DeletionGene Knockout TechniquesSensitivity and SpecificityTrypanosoma cruzi

Identifiers

PMID19432966
PMCPMC2688506
OpenAlexW2035959364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.