Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23028641›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

FRUIT, a scar-free system for targeted chromosomal mutagenesis, epitope tagging, and promoter replacement in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica.

Anne M Stringer, Navjot Singh, Anastasiya Yermakova, Brianna L Petrone, Jayaleka J Amarasinghe, Lucia Reyes-Diaz, Nicholas J Mantis, Joseph T Wade

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Mapping theMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2024
    Article
  6. σeLife · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genome-wide mapping of thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Regulatory roles ofeLife · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Global Lysine Acetylation inJournal of bacteriology · 2019
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anne M StringerWadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, United States of America.
Navjot Singh
Anastasiya Yermakova
Brianna L Petrone
Jayaleka J Amarasinghe
Lucia Reyes-Diaz
Nicholas J Mantis
Joseph T Wade
New York State Department of Health · USUniversity at Albany, State University of New York · USWadsworth Center · US

Funding

Pervasive transcription in bacterial genomesDP2OD007188 · OD · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI WADE, JOSEPH THOMAS · 2010 to 2010
$2.4M
Training in Biodefense and Emerging Infectious DiseaseT32AI055429 · NIAID · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI MCDONOUGH, KATHLEEN A · 2004 to 2014
$2.2M
Epithelial Glycoconjugates as Barriers against Enteric InfectionsR01HD061916 · NICHD · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI BRY, LYNN, MANTIS, NICHOLAS J. · 2009 to 2013
$1.9M
Characterization of a novel ETEC virulence regulatorR03AI094245 · NIAID · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI WADE, JOSEPH THOMAS · 2011 to 2012
$142k
NIAID NIH HHS R03 AI094245NIAID NIH HHS R03AI094245NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI055429NIAID NIH HHS T32AI055429NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD061916NICHD NIH HHS R01HD061916NIH HHS DP2 OD007188NIH HHS DP2OD007188
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recombineering is a widely-used approach to delete genes, introduce insertions and point mutations, and introduce epitope tags into bacterial chromosomes. Many recombineering methods have been described, for a wide range of bacterial species. These methods are often limited by (i) low efficiency, and/or (ii) introduction of "scar" DNA into the chromosome. Here, we describe a rapid, efficient, PCR-based recombineering method, FRUIT, that can be used to introduce scar-free point mutations, deletions, epitope tags, and promoters into the genomes of enteric bacteria. The efficiency of FRUIT is far higher than that of the most widely-used recombineering method for Escherichia coli. We have used FRUIT to introduce point mutations and epitope tags into the chromosomes of E. coli K-12, Enterotoxigenic E. coli, and Salmonella enterica. We have also used FRUIT to introduce constitutive and inducible promoters into the chromosome of E. coli K-12. Thus, FRUIT is a versatile, efficient recombineering approach that can be applied in multiple species of enteric bacteria.

Indexed as

MutagenesisBacteriaBase SequenceChromosomes, BacterialDrug Resistance, BacterialEnterotoxigenic Escherichia coliEpitopesEscherichia coli K12Gene DeletionGenes, BacterialGenetic EngineeringKanamycinPoint MutationPromoter Regions, GeneticSalmonella typhimuriumEpitopesKanamycin

Identifiers

PMID23028641
PMCPMC3459970
OpenAlexW2006113918

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.