ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2016
Detection, Characterization, and Typing of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli.
Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serology as an early diagnostic tool in pediatric patients with Shiga toxin-producingJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026Trial
- Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Outbreak in Canadian Daycare Centers.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- The Effect of Mitomycin C on Induction of Shiga Toxin Production in Clinical STEC Isolates.Toxins · 2025Article
- Development of a set of bacterial engineered glycoconjugates as novel serogroup-specific antigens for the serodiagnosis of Escherichia coli O26, O111, O103 and O45 infections associated to hemolytic uremic syndrome.Microbial cell factories · 2025Article
- Article
- A novel enrichment-free, low-volume filtration and rapid lysis (ELR) method in combination with real-time PCR for detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in water.Access microbiology · 2025Article
- Isolation of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from sheep faecal samples: bacteriological findings.Access microbiology · 2025Article
- Colorimetric and electrochemical analysis of DNAzyme-LAMP amplicons for the detection of Escherichia coli in food matrices.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A rapid on-site loop-mediated isothermal amplification technology as an early warning system for the detection of Shiga toxin-producingMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2024Article
- A challenging STEC strain isolation from patients' stools: an O166:H15 STEC strain with theMicrobiology spectrum · 2024Article
- How to Improve Surveillance Program for Shiga Toxin-ProducingPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Rapid and visual detection of Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC) in carabeef meat harnessing loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP).Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024Article
- Prevalence of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli in the feces of free-roaming wildlife throughout South Korea.PloS one · 2024Article
- Whole-Genome Sequencing of Shiga Toxin-ProducingMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Phylogenetic relationship and virulence composition ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- An Overview of Healthcare Associated Infections and Their Detection Methods Caused by Pathogen Bacteria in Romania and Europe.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Epidemiology of Non-O157 Shiga Toxin-ProducingMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Development of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP)-Based Triplex PCR Marker for Serotype-specificPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- ABToxins · 2022Review
- Molecular characterization and phylogeny of Shiga toxin-producingFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are responsible for gastrointestinal diseases reported in numerous outbreaks around the world. Given the public health importance of STEC, effective detection, characterization and typing is critical to any medical laboratory system. While non-O157 serotypes account for the majority of STEC infections, frontline microbiology laboratories may only screen for STEC using O157-specific agar-based methods. As a result, non-O157 STEC infections are significantly under-reported. This review discusses recent advances on the detection, characterization and typing of STEC with emphasis on work performed at the Alberta Provincial Laboratory for Public Health (ProvLab). Candidates for the detection of all STEC serotypes include chromogenic agars, enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Culture methods allow further characterization of isolates, whereas qPCR provides the greatest sensitivity and specificity, followed by EIA. The virulence gene profiles using PCR arrays and stx gene subtypes can subsequently be determined. Different non-O157 serotypes exhibit markedly different virulence gene profiles and a greater prevalence of stx1 than stx2 subtypes compared to O157:H7 isolates. Finally, recent innovations in whole genome sequencing (WGS) have allowed it to emerge as a candidate for the characterization and typing of STEC in diagnostic surveillance isolates. Methods of whole genome analysis such as single nucleotide polymorphisms and k-mer analysis are concordant with epidemiological data and standard typing methods, such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and multiple-locus variable number tandem repeat analysis while offering additional strain differentiation. Together these findings highlight improved strategies for STEC detection using currently available systems and the development of novel approaches for future surveillance.
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.