ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2016
DNA Microarray Detection of 18 Important Human Blood Protozoan Species.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection and molecular identification of blood parasites in rodents captured from urban areas of southern Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo.Veterinary medicine and science · 2022Article
- Blood identification at the single-cell level based on a combination of laser tweezers Raman spectroscopy and machine learning.Biomedical optics express · 2021Article
- The role of vascular endothelium and exosomes in human protozoan parasitic diseases.Vessel plus · 2020Article
- Genotyping of KRAS Mutational Status by the In-Check Lab-on-Chip Platform.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate detection of blood protozoa from clinical samples is important for diagnosis, treatment and control of related diseases. In this preliminary study, a novel DNA microarray system was assessed for the detection of Plasmodium, Leishmania, Trypanosoma, Toxoplasma gondii and Babesia in humans, animals, and vectors, in comparison with microscopy and PCR data. Developing a rapid, simple, and convenient detection method for protozoan detection is an urgent need. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsThe microarray assay simultaneously identified 18 species of common blood protozoa based on the differences in respective target genes. A total of 20 specific primer pairs and 107 microarray probes were selected according to conserved regions which were designed to identify 18 species in 5 blood protozoan genera. The positive detection rate of the microarray assay was 91.78% (402/438). Sensitivity and specificity for blood protozoan detection ranged from 82.4% (95%CI: 65.9% ~ 98.8%) to 100.0% and 95.1% (95%CI: 93.2% ~ 97.0%) to 100.0%, respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) ranged from 20.0% (95%CI: 2.5% ~ 37.5%) to 100.0% and 96.8% (95%CI: 95.0% ~ 98.6%) to 100.0%, respectively. Youden index varied from 0.82 to 0.98. The detection limit of the DNA microarrays ranged from 200 to 500 copies/reaction, similar to PCR findings. The concordance rate between microarray data and DNA sequencing results was 100%. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, the newly developed microarray platform provides a convenient, highly accurate, and reliable clinical assay for the determination of blood protozoan 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.