Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22703293›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2012

Comparison of Haemophilus parasuis reference strains and field isolates by using random amplified polymorphic DNA and protein profiles.

Emilie S Zehr, Dennis V Lavrov, Louisa B Tabatabai

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Association betweenPeerJ · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Emilie S ZehrRuminant Diseases and Immunology, National Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Ames, IA 50010, USA. emilie.zehr@ars.usda.gov
Dennis V Lavrov
Louisa B Tabatabai

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaemophilus parasuis is the causative agent of Glässer's disease and is a pathogen of swine in high-health status herds. Reports on serotyping of field strains from outbreaks describe that approximately 30% of them are nontypeable and therefore cannot be traced. Molecular typing methods have been used as alternatives to serotyping. This study was done to compare random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) profiles and whole cell protein (WCP) lysate profiles as methods for distinguishing H. parasuis reference strains and field isolates.

resultsThe DNA and WCP lysate profiles of 15 reference strains and 31 field isolates of H. parasuis were analyzed using the Dice and neighbor joining algorithms. The results revealed unique and reproducible DNA and protein profiles among the reference strains and field isolates studied. Simpson's index of diversity showed significant discrimination between isolates when three 10 mer primers were combined for the RAPD method and also when both the RAPD and WCP lysate typing methods were combined.

conclusionsThe RAPD profiles seen among the reference strains and field isolates did not appear to change over time which may reflect a lack of DNA mutations in the genes of the samples. The recent field isolates had different WCP lysate profiles than the reference strains, possibly because the number of passages of the type strains may affect their protein expression.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacterial ProteinsBacteriological TechniquesDNA, BacterialHaemophilus parasuisProteomeProteomicsRandom Amplified Polymorphic DNA TechniqueReproducibility of ResultsSwineBacterial ProteinsDNA, BacterialProteome

Identifiers

PMID22703293
PMCPMC3499290

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.