ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2016
Rapid screening for antibiotic resistance elements on the RNA transcript, protein and enzymatic activity level.
Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Programmable CRISPR-Cas diagnostic platforms for rapid detection of uropathogens and antimicrobial resistance.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Paving the way for precise diagnostics of antimicrobial resistant bacteria.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Review
- Immunofluorescence Targeting PBP2a Protein: A New Potential Methicillin Resistance Screening Test.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe emerging threat posed by antibiotic resistance has affected public health systems all over the world. Surveillance of resistant bacteria in clinical settings and identifying them in mixed cultures is of paramount importance and can contribute to the control of their spreading. Culture-independent monitoring approaches are highly desirable, since they yield results much faster than traditional susceptibility testing. However, many rapid molecular methods like PCR only detect the sole presence of a potential resistance gene, do not provide information regarding efficient transcription, expression and functionality and, in addition, cannot assign resistance genes to species level in mixed cultures.
methodsBy using plasmid-encoded TEM β-lactamase mediated ampicillin resistances as a proof of principle system, we (1) developed a fluorescence in situ hybridization-test (FISH) capable to detect the respective mRNAs, (2) implemented an immunofluorescence test to identify the corresponding proteins and (3) compared these two microscopic tests with an established colorimetric nitrocefin assay to assess the enzymatic activity.
resultsAll three methods proved to be suitable for the testing of antibiotic resistance, but only FISH and immunofluorescence were able to differentiate between susceptible and resistant bacteria on the single cell level and can be combined with simultaneous species identification.
conclusionsFluorescence in situ hybridization and immunofluorescence tests are promising techniques in susceptibility testing since they bridge the gap between the slow, but accurate and sound cultural methods and molecular detection methods like PCR with much less functional relevance.
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.