ArticleBMC microbiology2012
LNA probes substantially improve the detection of bacterial endosymbionts in whole mount of insects by fluorescent in-situ hybridization.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative genomics and metabolic model analysis of primary and secondary endosymbionts present in different species of whitefly.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2026Article
- Development of an LNA-Based qPCR Assay for DetectingInsects · 2025Article
- Whitefly endosymbionts: IPM opportunity or tilting at windmills?Journal of pest science · 2022Review
- Article
- Novel locked nucleic acid (LNA)-based probe for the rapid identification of Chlamydia suis using real-time PCR.BMC veterinary research · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetection of unculturable bacteria and their localization in the host, by fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH), is a powerful technique in the study of host-bacteria interaction. FISH probes are designed to target the 16 s rRNA region of the bacteria to be detected. LNA probes have recently been used in FISH studies and proven to be more efficient. To date no report has employed LNA probes for FISH detection of bacterial endosymbiont in the whole mount tissues. Further, though speculated, bacteriocytes have not been reported from males of Bemisia tabaci.
resultsIn this study, we compared the efficiency in detecting bacteria by fluorescent DNA oligonucleotides versus modified probes containing Locked Nucleic Acid (LNA) substitution in their structure. We used the insect Bemisia tabaci as the experimental material since it carried simultaneous infection by two bacteria: one a primary endosymbiont, Portiera (and present in more numbers) while the other a secondary endosymbiont Arsenophonus (and present in less numbers). Thus a variation in the abundance of bacteria was expected. While detecting both the bacteria, we found a significant increase in the signal whenever LNA probes were used. However, the difference was more pronounced in detecting the secondary endosymbiont, wherein DNA probes gave weak signals when compared to LNA probes. Also, signal to noise ratio for LNA probes was higher than DNA probes. We found that LNA considerably improved sensitivity of FISH, as compared to the commonly used DNA oligonucleotide probe.
conclusionBy employing LNA probes we could detect endosymbiotic bacteria in males, which have never been reported previously. We were able to detect bacteriocytes containing Portiera and Arsenophonus in the males of B. tabaci. Thus, employing LNA probes at optimized conditions will help to significantly improve detection of bacteria at the lowest concentration and may give a comprehensible depiction about their specific distribution within samples.
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.