ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Towards Development of Improved Serodiagnostics for Tularemia by Use of Francisella tularensis Proteome Microarrays.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding the Unexpected: How Cell-Free DNA Sequencing Unveiled an Elusive Tularemia Case.The Permanente journal · 2025Article
- Shotgun Immunoproteomic Approach for the Discovery of Linear B-Cell Epitopes in Biothreat AgentsFrontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- Review
- Challenges of Francisella classification exemplified by an atypical clinical isolate.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2018Article
- Identification ofClinical proteomics · 2018Article
- Development of ELISAs for diagnosis of acute typhoid fever in Nigerian children.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2017Article
- Transient Cannabinoid Receptor 2 Blockade during Immunization Heightens Intensity and Breadth of Antigen-specific Antibody Responses in Young and Aged mice.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Distinct antibody responses of patients with mild and severe leptospirosis determined by whole proteome microarray analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Tularemia in humans is caused mainly by two subspecies of the Gram-negative facultative anaerobe Francisella tularensis: F. tularensis subsp. tularensis (type A) and F. tularensis subsp. holarctica (type B). The current serological test for tularemia is based on agglutination of whole organisms, and the reactive antigens are not well understood. Previously, we profiled the antibody responses in type A and B tularemia cases in the United States using a proteome microarray of 1,741 different proteins derived from the type A strain Schu S4. Fifteen dominant antigens able to detect antibodies to both types of infection were identified, although these were not validated in a different immunoassay format. Since type A and B subspecies are closely related, we hypothesized that Schu S4 antigens would also have utility for diagnosing type B tularemia caused by strains from other geographic locations. To test this, we probed the Schu S4 array with sera from 241 type B tularemia cases in Spain. Despite there being no type A strains in Spain, we confirmed the responses against some of the same potential serodiagnostic antigens reported previously, as well as determined the responses against additional potential serodiagnostic antigens. Five potential serodiagnostic antigens were evaluated on immunostrips, and two of these (FTT1696/GroEL and FTT0975/conserved hypothetical protein) discriminated between the Spanish tularemia cases and healthy controls. We conclude that antigens from the type A strain Schu S4 are suitable for detection of antibodies from patients with type B F. tularensis infections and that these can be used for the diagnosis of tularemia in a deployable format, such as the immunostrip.
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.