ArticlePeerJ2014
A localized PCR inhibitor in a porcelain crab suggests a protective role.
Article in PeerJ, 2014. 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.
- The first clawed lobster virus Homarus gammarus nudivirus (HgNV n. sp.) expands the diversity of the Nudiviridae.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) inhibitors have been identified from biological and environmental samples. By and large, such substances are treated as random nuisances and contaminants with alternate functions; their inhibitory effects on DNA replication being a coincidental property of their molecular structure. Here, we demonstrate the presence of a localized PCR inhibitor in the foregut of the porcelain crab Petrolisthes rufescens (Anomura: Porcellanidae) from the Red Sea. The inhibitor precluded amplification of 28s, 16s and 18s gene sequences effectively but lost activity at 10(-2) dilutions from initial concentration. Heat treatment was ineffective in arresting inhibition and spectrophotometric techniques suggested that the inhibitor was not a melanin-type compound. The compound was not detected from midgut, hindgut, or gills of the crab. Activity of the inhibitor was precluded when samples were treated with suspensions from the midgut, suggesting that enzymatic degradation of the inhibitor likely happens at that part of the gut. As many microbial pathogens invade their hosts via ingestion, we suggest the presence of the localized inhibitor could carry a defensive or immunological role for P. rufescens. The identity of the inhibitory molecule remains unknown.
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.