ArticleFolia microbiologica2015
Detection of novel Chlamydiae and Legionellales from human nasal samples of healthy volunteers.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Are ELISA and PCR Discrepancies in the Identification ofMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Free-Living Amoeba Vermamoeba vermiformis Induces Allergic Airway Inflammation.The Korean journal of parasitology · 2022Article
- Free-Living Amoebas in Extreme Environments: The True Survival in our Planet.BioMed research international · 2022Review
- Reliable and Sensitive Nested PCR for the Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Detection of Chlamydiaceae and Chlamydia-like organisms on the ocular surface of children and adults from a trachoma-endemic region.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Chlamydia related bacteria (Chlamydiales) in early pregnancy: community-based cohort study.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chlamydiae are intracellular bacterial parasites of eukaryotes, ranging from amoebae to humans. They comprise many novel members and are investigated as emerging pathogens. Environmental studies highlighted similarities between the ecologies of chlamydiae and legionellae, both groups being important agents of respiratory infections. Herein, we analyzed nasal samples from healthy persons, searching for the presence of amoebae, chlamydiae and legionellae. From a total of 25 samples, we recovered by PCR eight samples positive to chlamydiae and six samples positive to legionellae. Among these samples, four were positive to both organisms. The sequencing of 16S rDNAs allowed to identify (i) among Chlamydiae: Parachlamydia acanthamoebae, Chlamydophila psittaci, Chlamydophila felis, and members of Rhabdochlamydiaceae, Simkaniaceae and E6 lineage and (ii) among Legionellaceae: Legionella longbeachae, Legionella bozemanii and Legionella impletisoli. Unexpectedly, we also recovered Diplorickettsia sp. Amoebae collected from nasal mucosae, Acanthamoeba and Vermamoeba, were endosymbiont-free, and chlamydiae revealed refractory to amoeba coculture. This study shows common exposure to chlamydiae and legionellae and suggests open air activities like gardening as a probable additional source of infection.
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.