Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22919600›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2012

Development of a multiplex PCR assay for detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, and enteropathogenic E. coli strains.

Douglas J Botkin, Lucía Galli, Vinoth Sankarapani, Michael Soler, Marta Rivas, Alfredo G Torres

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Clinical implications of enteroadherent Escherichia coli.Current gastroenterology reports · 2012
    Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Douglas J BotkinDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston, TX, USA.
Lucía Galli
Vinoth Sankarapani
Michael Soler
Marta Rivas
Alfredo G Torres
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USAdministración Nacional de Laboratorios e Institutos de Salud · AR

Funding

Training in Emerging Infectious Diseases and BiodefenseT32AI007536 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BR GALVESTON · PI WHITE, ARTHUR CLINTON · 1998 to 2013
$4.1M
Long Polar Fimbriae of Attaching and Effacing Escherichia coliR01AI079154 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI TORRES, ALFREDO G · 2009 to 2013
$1.9M
NIAID NIH HHS 5-R01-AI079154NIAID NIH HHS 5-T32-AI007536-12NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI079154NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007536
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Escherichia coli O157:H7 and other pathogenic E. coli strains are enteric pathogens associated with food safety threats and which remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the current study, we investigated whether enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), and enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) strains can be rapidly and specifically differentiated with multiplex PCR (mPCR) utilizing selected biomarkers associated with each strain's respective virulence genotype. Primers were designed to amplify multiple intimin (eae) and long polar fimbriae (lpfA) variants, the bundle-forming pilus gene bfpA, and the Shiga toxin-encoding genes stx1 and stx2. We demonstrated consistent amplification of genes specific to the prototype EHEC O157:H7 EDL933 (lpfA1-3, lpfA2-2, stx1, stx2, and eae-γ) and EPEC O127:H6 E2348/69 (eae-α, lpfA1-1, and bfpA) strains using the optimized mPCR protocol with purified genomic DNA (gDNA). A screen of gDNA from isolates in a diarrheagenic E. coli collection revealed that the mPCR assay was successful in predicting the correct pathotype of EPEC and EHEC clones grouped in the distinctive phylogenetic disease clusters EPEC1 and EHEC1, and was able to differentiate EHEC1 from EHEC2 clusters. The assay detection threshold was 2 × 10(4) CFU per PCR reaction for EHEC and EPEC. mPCR was also used to screen Argentinean clinical samples from hemolytic uremic syndrome and diarrheal patients, resulting in 91% sensitivity and 84% specificity when compared to established molecular diagnostic procedures. In conclusion, our mPCR methodology permitted differentiation of EPEC, STEC and EHEC strains from other pathogenic E. coli; therefore, the assay becomes an additional tool for rapid diagnosis of these organisms.

Indexed as

Food MicrobiologyBacteriological TechniquesEnterohemorrhagic Escherichia coliEnteropathogenic Escherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsEscherichia coli ProteinsHumansMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityShiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coliVirulence FactorsEscherichia coli ProteinsVirulence FactorsdiagnosticsE. coli O157enterohemorrhagic E. colienteropathogenic E. coliShiga toxin-producing E. coli

Identifiers

PMID22919600
PMCPMC3417533
OpenAlexW2014879372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.