Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26205243›Full record

ReviewFEMS yeast research2015

Candida glabrata: new tools and technologies-expanding the toolkit.

Hsueh-lui Ho, Ken Haynes

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in FEMS yeast research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Mass spectrometry in research laboratories and clinical diagnostic: a new era in medical mycology.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. CRISPR-Based Genetic Manipulation ofFrontiers in genome editing · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Microorganisms · 2019
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hsueh-lui HoBiosciences, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QD, UK h.ho@exeter.ac.uk.
Ken HaynesBiosciences, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QD, UK.
University of Exeter · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F005210/2Wellcome Trust 097377/Z/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a noticeable rise in fungal infections related to non-albicans Candida species, including Candida glabrata which has both intrinsic resistance to and commonly acquired resistance to azole antifungals. Phylogenetically, C. glabrata is more closely related to the mostly non-pathogenic model organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae than to other Candida species. Despite C. glabrata's designation as a pathogen by Wickham in 1957, relatively little is known about its mechanism of virulence. Over the past few years, technology to analyse the molecular basis of infection has developed rapidly, and here we briefly review the major advances in tools and technologies available to explore and investigate the virulence of C. glabrata that have occurred over the past decade.

Indexed as

AnimalsCandida glabrataCandidiasisDisease Models, AnimalGenetics, MicrobialHumansMolecular BiologyVirulenceVirulence FactorsVirulence FactorsCandidaCandida glabrataS. cerevisiaetechnologiestoolsvirulence

Identifiers

PMID26205243
PMCPMC4629792
OpenAlexW2196963808

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.