ArticlePloS one2016
Sequencer-Based Capillary Gel Electrophoresis (SCGE) Targeting the rDNA Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) Regions for Accurate Identification of Clinically Important Yeast Species.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Usefulness of Capillary Gel Electrophoresis-Based PCR for Detection ofGels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Antifungal susceptibility profiles and drug resistance mechanisms of clinicalFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Identification and Antifungal Susceptibility Analysis ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Antifungal Susceptibility Profiles and Resistance Mechanisms of ClinicalFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Optimisation of biomass, exopolysaccharide and intracellular polysaccharide production from the mycelium of an identifiedAIMS microbiology · 2019Article
- Identification and Antifungal Susceptibility Profiles ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- Article
- Identification and Antifungal Susceptibility Profiles of Candida haemulonii Species Complex Clinical Isolates from a Multicenter Study in China.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate species identification of Candida, Cryptococcus, Trichosporon and other yeast pathogens is important for clinical management. In the present study, we developed and evaluated a yeast species identification scheme by determining the rDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region length types (LTs) using a sequencer-based capillary gel electrophoresis (SCGE) approach. A total of 156 yeast isolates encompassing 32 species were first used to establish a reference SCGE ITS LT database. Evaluation of the ITS LT database was then performed on (i) a separate set of (n = 97) clinical isolates by SCGE, and (ii) 41 isolates of 41 additional yeast species from GenBank by in silico analysis. Of 156 isolates used to build the reference database, 41 ITS LTs were identified, which correctly identified 29 of the 32 (90.6%) species, with the exception of Trichosporon asahii, Trichosporon japonicum and Trichosporon asteroides. In addition, eight of the 32 species revealed different electropherograms and were subtyped into 2-3 different ITS LTs each. Of the 97 test isolates used to evaluate the ITS LT scheme, 96 (99.0%) were correctly identified to species level, with the remaining isolate having a novel ITS LT. Of the additional 41 isolates for in silico analysis, none was misidentified by the ITS LT database except for Trichosporon mucoides whose ITS LT profile was identical to that of Trichosporon dermatis. In conclusion, yeast identification by the present SCGE ITS LT assay is a fast, reproducible and accurate alternative for the identification of clinically important yeasts with the exception of Trichosporon 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.