ArticleScience advances2016
Universal microbial diagnostics using random DNA probes.
Article in Science advances, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Bacteria Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing via 5-Min Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Article
- Expanded Multiplexing on Sensor-Constrained Microfluidic Partitioning Systems.Analytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Extreme Compressed Sensing of Poisson Rates from Multiple Measurements.IEEE transactions on signal processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society · 2022Article
- Distribution and Drug Resistance of Pathogenic Bacteria and Prognosis in Patients with Septicemia Bloodstream Infection with Renal Insufficiency.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- To Petabytes and beyond: recent advances in probabilistic and signal processing algorithms and their application to metagenomics.Nucleic acids research · 2020Article
- Emerging Analytical Techniques for Rapid Pathogen Identification and Susceptibility Testing.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early identification of pathogens is essential for limiting development of therapy-resistant pathogens and mitigating infectious disease outbreaks. Most bacterial detection schemes use target-specific probes to differentiate pathogen species, creating time and cost inefficiencies in identifying newly discovered organisms. We present a novel universal microbial diagnostics (UMD) platform to screen for microbial organisms in an infectious sample, using a small number of random DNA probes that are agnostic to the target DNA sequences. Our platform leverages the theory of sparse signal recovery (compressive sensing) to identify the composition of a microbial sample that potentially contains novel or mutant species. We validated the UMD platform in vitro using five random probes to recover 11 pathogenic bacteria. We further demonstrated in silico that UMD can be generalized to screen for common human pathogens in different taxonomy levels. UMD's unorthodox sensing approach opens the door to more efficient and universal molecular diagnostics.
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.