ArticleMedical mycology2013
Practical identification of eight medically important Trichosporon species by reverse line blot hybridization (RLB) assay and rolling circle amplification (RCA).
Article in Medical mycology, 2013. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trichosporon Urinary Tract Infections: A Hidden Menace Revealed.Iranian journal of pathology · 2025Review
- Article
- Trichosporon asahii urinary tract infection in immunocompetent patients.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2015Article
- Development of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for rapid detection of Trichosporon asahii in experimental and clinical samples.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- Article
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 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed a reverse line blot (RLB) hybridization-, and rolling circle amplification (RCA)-based assays for the identification of Trichoporon species and evaluated them with 48 isolates that had been previously recognized as belonging to eight species (Trichosporon asahii, T. cutaneum, T. dermatis, T. domesticum, T. inkin, T. japonicum, T. jirovecii, and T. laibachii). Results were compared to those obtained with DNA sequencing of three rRNA gene loci, i.e., the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region, D1/D2 domain of the 28S rRNA gene and intergenic spacer 1 (IGS1) region. Using species-specific, or group-specific probes targeted at the ITS region and the D1/D2 domain, the RLB assay permitted accurate species identification of all 48 isolates with 100% specificity. Species-specific RLB probes correctly assigned 45/48 (94%) of the isolates (six species) with the exception of T. dermatis and T. japonicum isolates which were not targeted by the assay. Identification of T. dermatis relied on a positive hybridization result with the group-specific probe hybridizing with T. dermatis and T. jirovecii and the absence of a signal with the T. jirovecii-specific probe. T. japonicum strains were first assigned to the T. asahii-T. japonicum group by hybridization with the two species group-specific probe and then as T. japonicum by the absence of signal with a T. asahii-specific probe. Twelve species-specific RCA probes targeting the eight species studied detected templates of all 48 Trichosporon isolates and an artificial template of T. asteroides, all with good specificity. Both RLB and RCA are potential alternatives to DNA sequencing for the identification of Trichosporon species. The RLB approach is suited for the batched simultaneous analysis of large numbers of isolates, while RCA is more appropriate for the immediate study of single isolates. Comparative costs are US$7 and US$2 per assay for the RLB and RCA methods, respectively.
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.