ArticleJournal of molecular biomarkers & diagnosis2013
Cloning, Expression and Purification of
Article in Journal of molecular biomarkers & diagnosis, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review on antigens for serodiagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis, with a focus on East Africa.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Pooled it
- Identification and Functional Validation of a Biomarker for the Diagnosis of Miltefosine Relapse during Visceral Leishmaniasis.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2018Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnostic test using rk39 antigen is widely used for visceral leishmaniasis. However it detects anti-rk39 antibodies in 20-32% of endemic healthy individuals. In search for a better biomarker of infection, we identified a protein of molecular weight 70 kDa (BHUP1), specifically recognized by sera of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) patients.
methodsThe protein was cloned as His-tagged fusion protein and purified. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of this protein in an enzyme linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) format in comparison to the rk39 antigen using sera collected from various groups of individuals.
resultsThe sensitivity of rBHUP1 was 96.5% compared to 98.8% with rk39. For healthy controls from non endemic and endemic regions, the specificity of rBHUP1 was 100% and 95.6% compared to 100% and 84.9% for rk39, respectively. For other infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, viral fever, etc., specificity of rBHUP1 was as low as 74.5% when compared to 94% of rk39. At six month and one year follow-up, 74% and 22.5% patients tested positive with rBHUP1, respectively, compared to 97% and 77.4% with rk39 antigen.
conclusionThough the high sensitivity and specificity of rBHUP1 antigen for VL and healthy controls would have made it a good diagnostic biomarkers, however, its non-specific reaction with other infectious diseases limit its utility.
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.