ArticleScientific reports2016
Comparison of standard, quantitative and digital PCR in the detection of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systemic review of the role of enterotoxic Bacteroides fragilis in colorectal cancer.Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Pooled it
- Biological Mechanisms of EnterotoxigenicToxins · 2025Review
- Future Prospects of Luminescent Silicon Nanowires Biosensors.Biosensors · 2022Article
- Bacterial endophytes as indicators of susceptibility to Cercospora Leaf Spot (CLS) disease in Beta vulgaris L.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Molecular assays to reliably detect and quantify predation on a forest pest in bats faeces.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Bacteria-Mediated Oncogenesis and the Underlying Molecular Intricacies: What We Know So Far.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Duplex dPCR System for Rapid Identification of Gram-Negative Pathogens in the Blood of Patients with Bloodstream Infection: A Culture-Independent Approach.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Advancement inBiosensors · 2021Review
- The Mechanism ofThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2020Review
- Article
- Toxigenic and non-toxigenic patterns I, II and III and biofilm-forming ability inGut pathogens · 2020Article
- Novel Application of Nanofluidic Chip Digital PCR for Detection of African Swine Fever Virus.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Toward the Development of a Circulating Free DNA-BasedJournal of clinical microbiology · 2019Review
- Development and evaluation of a droplet digital PCR assay for the diagnosis of paucibacillary leprosy in skin biopsy specimens.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Article
- Synthesis of multi-omic data and community metabolic models reveals insights into the role of hydrogen sulfide in colon cancer.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2018Article
- Gastrointestinal Pathobionts in Pediatric Crohn's Disease Patients.International journal of microbiology · 2018Article
- Distinct gut microbiome patterns associate with consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Droplet digital PCR for quantification ofWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Colonization with enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis is associated with early-stage colorectal neoplasia.PloS one · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gut colonization with enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF) appears to be associated with the development of colorectal cancer. However, differences in carriage rates are seen with various testing methods and sampling sites. We compared standard PCR, SYBR green and TaqMan quantitative PCR (qPCR) and digital PCR (dPCR) in detecting the B. fragilis toxin (bft) gene from cultured ETBF, and from matched luminal and faecal stool samples from 19 colorectal cancer patients. Bland-Altman analysis found that all three quantitative methods performed comparably in detecting bft from purified bacterial DNA, with the same limits of detection (<1 copy/μl). However, SYBR qPCR under-performed compared to TaqMan qPCR and dPCR in detecting bft in clinical stool samples; 13/38 samples were reported positive by SYBR, compared to 35 and 36 samples by TaqMan and dPCR, respectively. TaqMan qPCR and dPCR gave bft copy numbers that were 48-fold and 75-fold higher for the same samples than SYBR qPCR, respectively (p < 0.001). For samples that were bft-positive in both fecal and luminal stools, there was no difference in relative abundance between the sites, by any method tested. From our findings, we recommend the use of TaqMan qPCR as the preferred method to detect ETBF from clinical stool samples.
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.