ArticleEvolutionary applications2014
Limitations to estimating bacterial cross-species transmission using genetic and genomic markers: inferences from simulation modeling.
Article in Evolutionary applications, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic Epidemiology and Management of Salmonella in Island Ecosystems Used for Takahe Conservation.Microbial ecology · 2017Article
- Using whole genome sequencing to investigate transmission in a multi-host system: bovine tuberculosis in New Zealand.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- Genomics reveals historic and contemporary transmission dynamics of a bacterial disease among wildlife and livestock.Nature communications · 2016Article
- Evolution and population genomics of the Lyme borreliosis pathogen, Borrelia burgdorferi.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2015Review
- Evolutionary perspectives on wildlife disease: concepts and applications.Evolutionary applications · 2014Article
- Applying evolutionary concepts to wildlife disease ecology and management.Evolutionary applications · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cross-species transmission (CST) of bacterial pathogens has major implications for human health, livestock, and wildlife management because it determines whether control actions in one species may have subsequent effects on other potential host species. The study of bacterial transmission has benefitted from methods measuring two types of genetic variation: variable number of tandem repeats (VNTRs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). However, it is unclear whether these data can distinguish between different epidemiological scenarios. We used a simulation model with two host species and known transmission rates (within and between species) to evaluate the utility of these markers for inferring CST. We found that CST estimates are biased for a wide range of parameters when based on VNTRs and a most parsimonious reconstructed phylogeny. However, estimations of CST rates lower than 5% can be achieved with relatively low bias using as low as 250 SNPs. CST estimates are sensitive to several parameters, including the number of mutations accumulated since introduction, stochasticity, the genetic difference of strains introduced, and the sampling effort. Our results suggest that, even with whole-genome sequences, unbiased estimates of CST will be difficult when sampling is limited, mutation rates are low, or for pathogens that were recently introduced.
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.