ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Direct Repeat Unit (dru) Typing of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius from Dogs and Cats.
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 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic Diversity of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC398 Isolates Collected from Diseased Swine in the German National Resistance Monitoring Program GEMicrobiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Risk Factors for Antimicrobial Resistance ofVeterinary sciences · 2022Article
- Breeder-reported patterns of antimicrobial use and point prevalence of methicillin-resistantThe Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2020Article
- Direct repeat unitCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2017Article
- Presence of the optrA Gene in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus sciuri of Porcine Origin.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2016Article
- Systematic Review on Global Epidemiology of Methicillin-ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) has emerged in a remarkable manner as an important problem in dogs and cats. However, limited molecular epidemiological information is available. The aims of this study were to apply direct repeat unit (dru) typing in a large collection of well-characterized MRSP isolates and to use dru typing to analyze a collection of previously uncharacterized MRSP isolates. Two collections of MRSP isolates from dogs and cats were included in this study. The first collection comprised 115 well-characterized MRSP isolates from North America and Europe. The data for these isolates included multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and staphylococcal protein A gene (spa) typing results as well as SmaI macrorestriction patterns after pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). The second collection was a convenience sample of 360 isolates from North America. The dru region was amplified by PCR, sequenced, and analyzed. For the first collection, the discriminatory indices of the typing methods were calculated. All isolates were successfully dru typed. The discriminatory power for dru typing (D = 0.423) was comparable to that of spa typing (D = 0.445) and of MLST (D = 0.417) in the first collection. Occasionally, dru typing was able to further discriminate between isolates that shared the same spa type. Among all 475 isolates, 26 different dru types were identified, with 2 predominant types (dt9a and dt11a) among 349 (73.4%) isolates. The results of this study underline that dru typing is a useful tool for MRSP typing, being an objective, standardized, sequence-based method that is relatively cost-efficient and easy to perform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.