Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24466089›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Application of microarray and functional-based screening methods for the detection of antimicrobial resistance genes in the microbiomes of healthy humans.

Roderick M Card, Philip J Warburton, Nikki MacLaren, Peter Mullany, Elaine Allan, Muna F Anjum

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Distribution ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Characterizing Antimicrobial ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Roderick M CardDepartment of Bacteriology, Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Addlestone, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Philip J WarburtonDepartment of Microbial Diseases, Eastman Dental Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nikki MacLarenDepartment of Bacteriology, Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Addlestone, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Peter MullanyDepartment of Microbial Diseases, Eastman Dental Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Elaine AllanDepartment of Microbial Diseases, Eastman Dental Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Muna F AnjumDepartment of Bacteriology, Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Addlestone, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Animal and Plant Health Agency · GBUniversity College London · GBEastman Dental Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to screen for the presence of antimicrobial resistance genes within the saliva and faecal microbiomes of healthy adult human volunteers from five European countries. Two non-culture based approaches were employed to obviate potential bias associated with difficult to culture members of the microbiota. In a gene target-based approach, a microarray was employed to screen for the presence of over 70 clinically important resistance genes in the saliva and faecal microbiomes. A total of 14 different resistance genes were detected encoding resistances to six antibiotic classes (aminoglycosides, β-lactams, macrolides, sulphonamides, tetracyclines and trimethoprim). The most commonly detected genes were erm(B), blaTEM, and sul2. In a functional-based approach, DNA prepared from pooled saliva samples was cloned into Escherichia coli and screened for expression of resistance to ampicillin or sulphonamide, two of the most common resistances found by array. The functional ampicillin resistance screen recovered genes encoding components of a predicted AcrRAB efflux pump. In the functional sulphonamide resistance screen, folP genes were recovered encoding mutant dihydropteroate synthase, the target of sulphonamide action. The genes recovered from the functional screens were from the chromosomes of commensal species that are opportunistically pathogenic and capable of exchanging DNA with related pathogenic species. Genes identified by microarray were not recovered in the activity-based screen, indicating that these two methods can be complementary in facilitating the identification of a range of resistance mechanisms present within the human microbiome. It also provides further evidence of the diverse reservoir of resistance mechanisms present in bacterial populations in the human gut and saliva. In future the methods described in this study can be used to monitor changes in the resistome in response to antibiotic therapy.

Indexed as

MetagenomeMicrobiotaAmino Acid SequenceAnti-Infective AgentsDihydropteroate SynthaseDrug Resistance, MicrobialFecesHealthy VolunteersHumansMicroarray AnalysisMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMolecular Sequence DataSalivaSequence AlignmentAnti-Infective AgentsDihydropteroate Synthase

Identifiers

PMID24466089
PMCPMC3899262
OpenAlexW1988631277

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.