ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2010
Serodiagnosis of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection using three inclusion membrane proteins.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hypothetical protein Cpn0423 triggers NOD2 activation and contributes to Chlamydia pneumoniae-mediated inflammation.BMC microbiology · 2017Article
- Defining species-specific immunodominant B cell epitopes for molecular serology of Chlamydia species.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2015Article
- The transcriptional landscape of Chlamydia pneumoniae.Genome biology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Chlamydia pneumoniae genome-encoded open reading frames Cpn0146, Cpn0147, and Cpn0308 were expressed as recombinant proteins for detecting C. pneumoniae-specific antibodies in samples from three groups of individuals including 183 with C. pneumoniae-associated respiratory infection (group I), 60 healthy blood donors (group II), and 32 with no known respiratory infection (group III). The recombinant Cpn0146 was recognized by 71 (38.8% positive recognition rate), 15 (25%) and 1 (3.1%), Cpn0147 by 75 (40.9%), 14 (23.3%), and 2 (6.3%), and Cpn0308 by 82 (44.8%), 16 (26.7%), and 0 (0%) samples from groups I, II, and III, respectively. The positive recognition rates with any of the three antigens were significantly higher in group I than those in groups II and III, suggesting that more individuals from group I were likely infected with C. pneumoniae. This conclusion was confirmed with a commercially available whole organism-based ELISA kit (Savyon Diagnostics Ltd., Ashdod, Israel), which detected C. pneumoniae antibodies in 98 (64.1%), 26 (43.3%), and 4 (12.5%) samples from group I, II, and III, respectively. Comparing to the commercial kit, the recombinant antigen-based detection assays displayed >97% of detection specificity and >87% of sensitivity, suggesting that these recombinant antigens can be considered alternative tools for aiding in serodiagnosis of C. pneumoniae infection.
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.