ArticlePloS one2013
Whole genome analysis of epidemiologically closely related Staphylococcus aureus isolates.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The change of the bacteria from colonizers to pathogens is accompanied by a drastic change in expression profiles. These changes may be due to environmental signals or to mutational changes. We therefore compared the whole genome sequences of four sets of S. aureus isolates. Three sets were from the same patients. The isolates of each pair (S1800/S1805, S2396/S2395, S2398/S2397, an isolate from colonization and an isolate from infection, respectively) were obtained within <30 days of each other and the isolate from infection caused skin infections. The isolates were then compared for differences in gene content and SNPs. In addition, a set of isolates from a colonized pig and a farmer from the same farm at the same time (S0462 and S0460) were analyzed. The isolates pair S1800/S1805 showed a difference in a prophage, but these are easily lost or acquired. However, S1805 contained an integrative conjugative element not present in S1800. In addition, 92 SNPs were present in a variety of genes and the isolates S1800 and S1805 were not considered a pair. Between S2395/S2396 two SNPs were present: one was in an intergenic region and one was a synonymous mutation in a putative membrane protein. Between S2397/S2398 only one synonymous mutation in a putative lipoprotein was found. The two farm isolates were very similar and showed 12 SNPs in genes that belong to a number of different functional categories. However, we cannot pinpoint any gene that explains the change from carrier status to infection. The data indicate that differences between the isolate from infection and the colonizing isolate for S2395/S2396 and S2397/S2398 exist as well as between isolates from different hosts, but S1800/S1805 are not clonal.
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.