ArticleMycopathologia2012
RAPD analysis with the primer L15996 of Brazilian clinical and environmental Cryptococcus neoformans isolates.
Article in Mycopathologia, 2012. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The status of cryptococcosis in Latin America.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2018Review
- Global Molecular Epidemiology of Cryptococcus neoformans and Cryptococcus gattii: An Atlas of the Molecular Types.Scientifica · 2013Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Different methods have been used to perform the molecular characterization of Cryptococcus neoformans. Among them, RAPD analysis is able to separate isolates of the same species and genotypes. This study aimed to evaluate clinical and environmental C. neoformans isolates from Minas Gerais, Brazil by RAPD and correlate the genetic profiles with the ones obtained by URA5-RFLP, virulence factors and antifungal susceptibility patterns. Forty-five environmental (31 from areas surrounding hospital and 14 from captive bird droppings from pet-shops) and 29 clinical C. neoformans isolates were evaluated. Antifungal susceptibility tests (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute), URA5-RFLP analysis and the assessment of virulence factors were performed according to their original descriptions. RAPD profiles were obtained using the L15996 primer (5'-CTCCACCATTAGCACCCAAAGC-3'). RAPD analysis generated two to 20 bands for all studied isolates. The isolates presented similarities ranging from 10.8 to 100.0%. Considering a minimum identity score of 50%, four clusters were formed. Cluster I contained 10 pet-shops bird dropping isolates, cluster II contained 22 clinical isolates most of them recovered from cerebrospinal fluid, cluster III contained 14 isolates from hospital surroundings and cluster IV contained 12 environmental isolates most from hospital surroundings. Fourteen isolates were not grouped. The RAPD profiles were clustered according to their source and URA5-RFLP pattern. No correlation between virulence factors or antifungal susceptibility profile with the obtained RAPD profiles was observed.
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.