Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26804795›Full record

ArticleCurrent microbiology2016

Application of Routine Diagnostic Procedure, VITEK 2 Compact, MALDI-TOF MS, and PCR Assays in Identification Procedure of Bacterial Strain with Ambiguous Phenotype.

Marta Książczyk, Maciej Kuczkowski, Bartłomiej Dudek, Kamila Korzekwa, Anna Tobiasz, Agnieszka Korzeniowska-Kowal, Emil Paluch, Alina Wieliczko, Gabriela Bugla-Płoskońska

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current microbiology, 2016. 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
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. TheInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Investigation of Carriers ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. First Case ofMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Phylogenetic Structure of Reptile, Avian and UropathogenicInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marta KsiążczykDepartment of Microbiology, Institute of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Wrocław, Przybyszewskiego 63/77, 51-148, Wrocław, Poland. marta.ksiazczyk@uwr.edu.pl.
Maciej KuczkowskiDepartment of Epizootiology and Clinic of Bird and Exotic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Pl. Grunwaldzki 45, 50-366, Wrocław, Poland.
Bartłomiej DudekDepartment of Microbiology, Institute of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Wrocław, Przybyszewskiego 63/77, 51-148, Wrocław, Poland.
Kamila KorzekwaDepartment of Microbiology, Institute of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Wrocław, Przybyszewskiego 63/77, 51-148, Wrocław, Poland.
Anna TobiaszInstitute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Rudolfa Weigla 12, 53-114, Wrocław, Poland.
Agnieszka Korzeniowska-KowalInstitute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Rudolfa Weigla 12, 53-114, Wrocław, Poland.
Emil PaluchDepartment of Microbiology, Institute of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Wrocław, Przybyszewskiego 63/77, 51-148, Wrocław, Poland.
Alina WieliczkoDepartment of Epizootiology and Clinic of Bird and Exotic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Pl. Grunwaldzki 45, 50-366, Wrocław, Poland.
Gabriela Bugla-PłoskońskaDepartment of Microbiology, Institute of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Wrocław, Przybyszewskiego 63/77, 51-148, Wrocław, Poland.
University of Wrocław · PLPolish Academy of Sciences · PLWroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In diagnostic microbiology as well as in microbiological research, the identification of a microorganism is a crucial and decisive stage. A broad choice of methods is available, based on both phenotypic and molecular properties of microbes. The aim of this study was to compare the application of phenotypic and molecular tools in bacterial identification on the example of Gram-negative intestine rod with an ambiguous phenotype. Different methods of identification procedure, which based on various properties of bacteria, were applied, e.g., microscopic observation of single-bacterial cells, macroscopic observation of bacterial colonies morphology, the automated system of microorganism identification (biochemical tests), the mass spectrometry method (analysis of bacterial proteome), and genetic analysis with PCR reactions. The obtained results revealed discrepancies in the identification of the tested bacterial strain with an atypical phenotype: mucous morphology of colonies, not characteristic for either E. coli and Citrobacter spp., mass spectrometry analysis of proteome initially assigned the tested strain to Citrobacter genus (C. freundii) and biochemical profiles pointed to Escherichia coli. A decisive method in the current study was genetic analysis with PCR reactions which identified conserved genetic sequences highly specific to E. coli species in the genome of the tested strain.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacterial Typing TechniquesFecesGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansPhenotypePolymerase Chain ReactionSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization

Identifiers

PMID26804795
OpenAlexW2260687054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.