Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26086047›Full record

ArticleThe Analyst2015

Biophysical separation of Staphylococcus epidermidis strains based on antibiotic resistance.

Paul V Jones, Shannon Huey, Paige Davis, Ryan Yanashima, Ryan McLemore, Alex McLaren, Mark A Hayes

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Analyst, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Study on non-bioparticles andRSC advances · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Single-cell electro-phenotyping for rapid assessment ofSensors and actuators. B, Chemical · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Paul V JonesArizona State University, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. mhayes@asu.edu.
Shannon Huey
Paige Davis
Ryan Yanashima
Ryan McLemore
Alex McLaren
Mark A Hayes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrophoretic and dielectrophoretic approaches to separations can provide unique capabilities. In the past, capillary and microchip-based approaches to electrophoresis have demonstrated extremely high-resolution separations. More recently, dielectrophoretic systems have shown excellent results for the separation of bioparticles. Here we demonstrate resolution of a difficult pair of targets: gentamicin resistant and susceptible strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis. This separation has significant potential implications for healthcare. This establishes a foundation for biophysical separations as a direct diagnostic tool, potentially improving nearly every figure of merit for diagnostics and antibiotic stewardship. The separations are performed on a modified gradient insulator-based dielectrophoresis (g-iDEP) system and demonstrate that the presence of antibiotic resistance enzymes (or secondary effects) produces a sufficient degree of electrophysical difference to allow separation. The differentiating factor is the ratio of electrophoretic to dielectrophoretic mobilities. This factor is 4.6 ± 0.6 × 10(9) V m(-2) for the resistant strain, versus 9.2 ± 0.4 × 10(9) V m(-2) for the susceptible strain. Using g-iDEP separation, this difference produces clear and easily discerned differentiation of the two strains.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCell SeparationDrug Resistance, MicrobialElectric ConductivityElectrophoresisGentamicinsHumansStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus epidermidisAnti-Bacterial AgentsGentamicins

Identifiers

PMID26086047
PMCPMC4541286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.