Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26351565›Full record

ArticleIrish veterinary journal2015

Sensitivity of two methods to detect Mycoplasma agalactiae in goat milk.

J Tatay-Dualde, A Sánchez, M Prats-van der Ham, A Gómez-Martín, A Paterna, J C Corrales, C de la Fe, A Contreras, J Amores

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Irish veterinary journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Contagious Agalactia In Sheep And Goats: Current Perspectives.Veterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019
    Review
  5. Molecular biological tools applied for identification of mastitis causing pathogens.International journal of veterinary science and medicine · 2017
    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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J Tatay-DualdeResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
A SánchezResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
M Prats-van der HamResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
A Gómez-MartínResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
A PaternaResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
J C CorralesResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
C de la FeResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
A ContrerasResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
J AmoresResearch Group on Ruminant Health, Animal Health Department, School of Veterinary Sciences, Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", University of Murcia, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
Universidad de Murcia · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaboratory diagnostic techniques able to detect Mycoplasma agalactiae are essential in contagious agalactia in dairy goats. This study was designed: 1) to determine the detection limits of PCR and culture in goat milk samples, 2) to examine the effects of experimental conditions including the DNA extraction method, PCR technique and storage conditions (fresh versus frozen stored milk samples) on these methods and 3), to establish agreement between PCR and culture techniques using milk samples from goats with mastitis in commercial dairy herds. The study was conducted both on artificially inoculated and field samples.

resultsOur findings indicate that culture is able to detect M. agalactiae in goat milk at lower concentrations than PCR. Qualitative detection of M.agalactiae by culture and PCR was not affected by sample freezing, though the DNA extraction method used significantly affected the results of the different PCR protocols. When clinical samples were used, both techniques showed good agreement.

conclusionsThe results from this study indicate that both culture and PCR are able to detect M. agalactiae in clinical goat mastitis samples. However, in bulk tank milk samples with presumably lower M. agalactiae concentrations, culture is recommended within the first 24 h of sample collection due to its lower limit of detection. To improve the diagnostic sensitivity of PCR in milk samples, there is a need to increase the efficiency of extracting DNA from milk samples using protocols including a previous step of enzymatic digestion.

Indexed as

Contagious agalactiaCultureGoatMilkMycoplasma agalactiaePCR

Identifiers

PMID26351565
PMCPMC4562104
OpenAlexW2148632572

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.