ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2012
Comparison of modified multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat fingerprinting with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for typing clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A single-tube multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae clinical specimens by use of multiplex PCR-capillary electrophoresis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat fingerprinting (MLVF) is based on multiplex PCR, utilizing variable number tandem repeat. Our goal was to compare the performance of MLVF in distinguishing clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates with that of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), which has traditionally been the gold standard.
methodsSixty-three clinically significant S. aureus isolates were tested using both PFGE and MLVF. Multiplex PCR for MLVF was performed using PCR primers for clfA, clfB, sdrCDE, sspA, and spa. PFGE was performed with genomic DNA fragments generated by SmaI endonuclease digestion. Banding patterns of MLVF or PFGE were analyzed using InfoQuestFP software.
resultsThe hands-on time of our modified method was about 3 h, on average, for each of 18 isolates. PFGE (80% cutoff) or MLVF (75% cutoff) separated all of the 63 isolates into 13 and 12 types, respectively. Three types generated by PFGE were identical to those generated by MLVF. PFGE and MLVF yielded similar Simpson's diversity indices, indicating similar discriminatory power. The overall concordance between PFGE and MLVF was low, as represented by adjusted Rand indices (0.266-0.278). PFGE predicted MLVF type better than MLVF predicted PFGE type, as reflected by Wallace coefficients (PFGE cutoff 80% vs. MLVF cutoff 75%, 0.389 vs. 0.233). Analysis of the relationship between a pair of isolates showed 91.0% concordance between the PFGE (80% cutoff) and MLVF (75% cutoff).
conclusionsOur simple, low-cost, modified MLVF protocol can effectively discriminate between S. aureus clinical isolates. MLVF can replace PFGE for the hospital infection control of S. aureus.
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.