ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Bacteriophage-based latex agglutination test for rapid identification of Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Phage endolysins-a novel class of antibacterial agents with a wide range of applications].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Review
- Endolysin, a Promising Solution against Antimicrobial Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Rapid Clinical Screening of Burkholderia pseudomallei Colonies by a Bacteriophage Tail Fiber-Based Latex Agglutination Assay.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2021Article
- Some coagulase negative Staphylococcus spp. isolated from buffalo can be misidentified as Staphylococcus aureus by phenotypic and Sa442 PCR methods.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- Rapid Waterborne Pathogen Detection with Mobile Electronics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid diagnosis is essential for the management of Staphylococcus aureus infections. A host recognition protein from S. aureus bacteriophage phiSLT was recombinantly produced and used to coat streptavidin latex beads to develop a latex agglutination test (LAT). The diagnostic accuracy of this bacteriophage-based test was compared with that of a conventional LAT, Pastorex Staph-Plus, by investigating a clinical collection of 86 S. aureus isolates and 128 coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) from deep tissue infections. All of the clinical S. aureus isolates were correctly identified by the bacteriophage-based test. While most of the CoNS were correctly identified as non-S. aureus isolates, 7.9% of the CoNS caused agglutination. Thus, the sensitivity of the bacteriophage-based LAT for identification of S. aureus among clinical isolates was 100%, its specificity was 92.1%, its positive predictive value (PPV) was 89.6%, and its negative predictive value (NPV) was 100%. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Pastorex LAT for the identification of S. aureus were 100%, 99.2%, 98.9%, and 100%, respectively. Among the additionally tested 35 S. aureus and 91 non-S. aureus staphylococcal reference and type strains, 1 isolate was false negative by each system; 13 and 8 isolates were false positive by the bacteriophage-based and Pastorex LATs, respectively. The ability of the phiSLT protein to detect S. aureus was dependent on the presence of wall teichoic acid (WTA) and corresponded to the production of ribitol phosphate WTA, which is found in most S. aureus clones but only a small minority of CoNS. Bacteriophage-based LAT identification is a promising strategy for rapid pathogen identification. Finding more specific bacteriophage proteins would increase the specificity of this novel diagnostic approach.
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.