ArticlePathogens and disease2016
Detection of Chlamydia infection in Peromyscus species rodents from sylvatic and laboratory sources.
Article in Pathogens and disease, 2016. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Isolation and characterization of a Chlamydia muridarum tc0237 mutant from a genetic screen that is attenuated in epithelial cells.PloS one · 2025Article
- Tail-specific protease is an essentialInfection and immunity · 2024Article
- Reemergence of the Murine Bacterial PathogenComparative medicine · 2022Article
- Exposure to Trypanosoma parasites induces changes in the microbiome of the Chagas disease vector Rhodnius prolixus.Microbiome · 2022Article
- Generation of Tetracycline and Rifamycin ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Immunopathogenesis of Chlamydial Infections.Current topics in microbiology and immunologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To determine if Chlamydia muridarum, or other chlamydiae, are enzootic in rodents, we probed a serum bank of wild Peromyscus spp. mice for immunoglobulin G-antibody reactivity to ultraviolet light-inactivated C. muridarum elementary bodies (EBs) using an enzyme-linked immunoassay. Applying a cut-off for a positive reaction of OD(405) nm = 0.1 at a 1:20 dilution, we found titratable antibody reactivity in 190 of 247 specimens surveyed (77%, mean OD(405) = 0.33 ± 0.26, range = 0.11-1.81, median = 0.25). In addition, serum samples were obtained from a colony of specific pathogen-free Peromyscus spp. maintained at the University of South Carolina and six of 12 samples were reactive (50%, mean OD(405) = 0.19 +/- 0.08, range = 0.1-0.32, median = 0.18). Lastly, 40 additional wild Peromyscus spp. were captured in a disparate region of Midwestern USA and 22 serum specimens were reactive (55%, mean OD(405) = 0.22 +/- 0.11, range = 0.1-0.48, median = 0.2). Specificity of selected reactive sera for chlamydial antigen was confirmed on Western blot using resolved purified EBs as the detecting antigen. From tissues removed from several mice at necropsy, the gene for chlamydial 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Positive samples of 16S rRNA were subjected to additional PCR for the major outer membrane protein gene (ompA). The amplicons of three select ompA positive samples were sequenced with ≥99% homology with C. muridarum. Our findings indicate that chlamydial infection is enzootic for Peromyscus spp., and that C. muridarum, or a closely related species or strain, is likely the agent in the tested rodent species.
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.