Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21527037›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2011

The use of microbead-based spoligotyping for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex to evaluate the quality of the conventional method: providing guidelines for Quality Assurance when working on membranes.

Edgar Abadia, Jian Zhang, Viviana Ritacco, Kristin Kremer, Raymond Ruimy, Leen Rigouts, Harrison Magdinier Gomes, Atiná Ribeiro Elias, Maryse Fauville-Dufaux, Karolien Stoffels and 11 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Spoligotyping of Clinical Isolates ofFrontiers in public health · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

21 authors.

Edgar AbadiaInstitute of Genetics and Microbiology UMR8621, CNRS Université Paris-Sud 11 Universud, Campus d'Orsay, F-91405 Orsay-Cedex, France.
Jian Zhang
Viviana Ritacco
Kristin Kremer
Raymond Ruimy
Leen Rigouts
Harrison Magdinier Gomes
Atiná Ribeiro Elias
Maryse Fauville-Dufaux
Karolien Stoffels
Voahangy Rasolofo-Razanamparany
Darío Garcia de Viedma
Marta Herranz
Sahal Al-Hajoj
Nalin Rastogi
Carlo Garzelli
Enrico Tortoli
Philip N Suffys
Dick van Soolingen
Guislaine Refrégier
Christophe Sola

Funding

Discovering hidden groups across tuberculosis patient and pathogen genotype dataR01LM009731 · NLM · RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI BENNETT, KRISTIN P, YENER, BULENT · 2008 to 2011
$1.7M
NLM NIH HHS R01LM009731
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe classical spoligotyping technique, relying on membrane reverse line-blot hybridization of the spacers of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis CRISPR locus, is used world-wide (598 references in Pubmed on April 8th, 2011). However, until now no inter-laboratory quality control study had been undertaken to validate this technique. We analyzed the quality of membrane-based spoligotyping by comparing it to the recently introduced and highly robust microbead-based spoligotyping. Nine hundred and twenty-seven isolates were analyzed totaling 39,861 data points. Samples were received from 11 international laboratories with a worldwide distribution.

methodsThe high-throughput microbead-based Spoligotyping was performed on CTAB and thermolyzate DNA extracted from isolated Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTC) strains coming from the genotyping participating centers. Information regarding how the classical Spoligotyping method was performed by center was available. Genotype discriminatory analyses were carried out by comparing the spoligotypes obtained by both methods. The non parametric U-Mann Whitney homogeneity test and the Spearman rank correlation test were performed to validate the observed results.

resultsSeven out of the 11 laboratories (63%), perfectly typed more than 90% of isolates, 3 scored between 80-90% and a single center was under 80% reaching 51% concordance only. However, this was mainly due to discordance in a single spacer, likely having a non-functional probe on the membrane used. The centers using thermolyzate DNA performed as well as centers using the more extended CTAB extraction procedure. Few centers shared the same problematic spacers and these problematic spacers were scattered over the whole CRISPR locus (Mostly spacers 15, 14, 18, 37, 39, 40).

conclusionsWe confirm that classical spoligotyping is a robust method with generally a high reliability in most centers. The applied DNA extraction procedure (CTAB or thermolyzate) did not affect the results in this study. However performance was center-dependent, suggesting that training is a key component in quality assurance of spoligotyping. Overall, no particular spacer yielded a higher degree of deviating results, suggesting that errors occur randomly either in the process of re-using membranes, or during the reading of the results and transferring of data from the film to a digital file. Last, the performance of the microbead-based method was excellent as previously shown by Cowan et al. (J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004) and Zhang et al. (J. Med. Microbiol. 2009) and demonstrated the proper detection of spacer 15 that is known to occasionally give weak signals in the classical spoligotyping.

Indexed as

Bacterial Typing TechniquesDNA, BacterialGenotypeHumansMycobacterium tuberculosisPolymerase Chain ReactionQuality ControlTuberculosisDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID21527037
PMCPMC3107175

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.