Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26313149›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Comparative Genomics and Characterization of Hybrid Shigatoxigenic and Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC/ETEC) Strains.

Outi Nyholm, Jani Halkilahti, Gudrun Wiklund, Uche Okeke, Lars Paulin, Petri Auvinen, Kaisa Haukka, Anja Siitonen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Hybrid strains of enterotoxigenic/Shiga toxin-producingJournal of medical microbiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Diversity of Hybrid- and Hetero-PathogenicFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Outi NyholmBacterial Infections Unit, Department of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland.
Jani HalkilahtiBacterial Infections Unit, Department of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland.
Gudrun WiklundDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Uche OkekeInstitute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Lars PaulinInstitute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Petri AuvinenInstitute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Kaisa HaukkaBacterial Infections Unit, Department of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland; Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Anja SiitonenBacterial Infections Unit, Department of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FIFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShigatoxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC) and enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) cause serious foodborne infections in humans. These two pathogroups are defined based on the pathogroup-associated virulence genes: stx encoding Shiga toxin (Stx) for STEC and elt encoding heat-labile and/or est encoding heat-stable enterotoxin (ST) for ETEC. The study investigated the genomics of STEC/ETEC hybrid strains to determine their phylogenetic position among E. coli and to define the virulence genes they harbor.

methodsThe whole genomes of three STEC/ETEC strains possessing both stx and est genes were sequenced using PacBio RS sequencer. Two of the strains were isolated from the patients, one with hemolytic uremic syndrome, and one with diarrhea. The third strain was of bovine origin. Core genome analysis of the shared chromosomal genes and comparison with E. coli and Shigella spp. reference genomes was performed to determine the phylogenetic position of the STEC/ETEC strains. In addition, a set of virulence genes and ETEC colonization factors were extracted from the genomes. The production of Stx and ST were studied.

resultsThe human STEC/ETEC strains clustered with strains representing ETEC, STEC, enteroaggregative E. coli, and commensal and laboratory-adapted E. coli. However, the bovine STEC/ETEC strain formed a remote cluster with two STECs of bovine origin. All three STEC/ETEC strains harbored several other virulence genes, apart from stx and est, and lacked ETEC colonization factors. Two STEC/ETEC strains produced both toxins and one strain Stx only.

conclusionsThis study shows that pathogroup-associated virulence genes of different E. coli can co-exist in strains originating from different phylogenetic lineages. The possibility of virulence genes to be associated with several E. coli pathogroups should be taken into account in strain typing and in epidemiological surveillance. Development of novel hybrid E. coli strains may cause a new public health risk, which challenges the traditional diagnostics of E. coli infections.

Indexed as

AnimalsCattleEnterotoxigenic Escherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsGenome, BacterialGenomicsHumansShiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coliVirulenceVirulence FactorsVirulence Factors

Identifiers

PMID26313149
PMCPMC4551483
OpenAlexW2121717453

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.