ArticlePloS one2013
Using complete genome comparisons to identify sequences whose presence accurately predicts clinically important phenotypes.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large-scale genomic sequencing of extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli strains.Genome research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In clinical settings it is often important to know not just the identity of a microorganism, but also the danger posed by that particular strain. For instance, Escherichia coli can range from being a harmless commensal to being a very dangerous enterohemorrhagic (EHEC) strain. Determining pathogenic phenotypes can be both time consuming and expensive. Here we propose a simple, rapid, and inexpensive method of predicting pathogenic phenotypes on the basis of the presence or absence of short homologous DNA segments in an isolate. Our method compares completely sequenced genomes without the necessity of genome alignments in order to identify the presence or absence of the segments to produce an automatic alignment of the binary string that describes each genome. Analysis of the segment alignment allows identification of those segments whose presence strongly predicts a phenotype. Clinical application of the method requires nothing more that PCR amplification of each of the set of predictive segments. Here we apply the method to identifying EHEC strains of E. coli and to distinguishing E. coli from Shigella. We show in silico that with as few as 8 predictive sequences, if even three of those predictive sequences are amplified the probability of being EHEC or Shigella is >0.99. The method is thus very robust to the occasional amplification failure for spurious reasons. Experimentally, we apply the method to screening a set of 98 isolates to distinguishing E. coli from Shigella, and EHEC from non-EHEC E. coli strains and show that all isolates are correctly identified.
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.