ArticleBioMed research international2013
Characteristics of clinical Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from British Columbia.
Article in BioMed research international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic Analysis of Shiga Toxin-ProducingToxins · 2022Article
- Antibiotic Resistance in Shiga ToxigenicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of enzyme immunoassays and real-time PCR for detecting Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in Southern Alberta, Canada.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are significant public health threats. Although STEC O157 are recognized foodborne pathogens, non-O157 STEC are also important causes of human disease. We characterized 10 O157:H7 and 15 non-O157 clinical STEC derived from British Columbia (BC). Eae, hlyA, and stx were more frequently observed in STEC O157, and 80 and 100% of isolates possessed stx₁ and stx₂, respectively. In contrast, stx₁ and stx₂ occurred in 80 and 40% of non-O157 STEC, respectively. Comparative genomic fingerprinting (CGF) revealed three distinct clusters (C). STEC O157 was identified as lineage I (LI; LSPA-6 111111) and clustered as a single group (C1). The cdi gene previously observed only in LII was seen in two LI O157 isolates. CGF C2 strains consisted of diverse non-O157 STEC while C3 included only O103:H25, O118, and O165 serogroup isolates. With the exception of O121 and O165 isolates which were similar in virulence gene complement to STEC O157, C1 O157 STEC produced more Stx2 than non-O157 STEC. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) screening revealed resistance or reduced sensitivity in all strains, with higher levels occurring in non-O157 STEC. One STEC O157 isolate possessed a mobile bla(CMY-2) gene transferrable across genre via conjugation.
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.