Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25716450›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015

Acrophialophora, a poorly known fungus with clinical significance.

Marcelo Sandoval-Denis, Josepa Gené, Deanna A Sutton, Nathan P Wiederhold, Josep Guarro

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Uncharted Territory.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Eight NewJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Medical mycology case reports · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcelo Sandoval-DenisUnitat de Micologia, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain.
Josepa GenéUnitat de Micologia, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain josepa.gene@urv.cat.
Deanna A SuttonFungus Testing Laboratory, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Nathan P WiederholdFungus Testing Laboratory, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Josep GuarroUnitat de Micologia, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain.
Institut d'Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili · ESThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversidad Rovira i Virgili · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acrophialophora fusispora is an emerging opportunistic fungus capable of causing human infections. The taxonomy of the genus is not yet resolved and, in order to facilitate identification of clinical specimens, we have studied a set of clinical and environmental Acrophialophora isolates by morphological and molecular analyses. This set included the available type strains of Acrophialophora species and similar fungi, some of which were considered by various authors to be synonyms of A. fusispora. Sequence analysis of the large subunit (LSU) and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions of the nuclear ribosomal DNA and a fragment of the β-tubulin (Tub) gene revealed that Acrophialophora belongs in the family Chaetomiaceae and comprises three different species, i.e., A. fusispora, Acrophialophora levis, and Acrophialophora seudatica; the latter was previously included in the genus Ampullifera. The most prevalent species among clinical isolates was A. levis (72.7%), followed by A. fusispora (27.3%), both of which were isolated mostly from respiratory specimens (72.7%), as well as subcutaneous and corneal tissue samples. In general, of the eight antifungal drugs tested, voriconazole had the greatest in vitro activity, while all other agents showed poor in vitro activity against these fungi.

Indexed as

Environmental MicrobiologyAscomycotaCluster AnalysisDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal SpacerHumansMicroscopyMolecular Sequence DataMycosesPhylogenyRNA, RibosomalSequence Analysis, DNATubulinDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal SpacerRNA, RibosomalRNA, ribosomal, 26STubulin

Identifiers

PMID25716450
PMCPMC4400740
OpenAlexW2148132087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.