Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28088177›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2017

A novel quantitative PCR detects Babesia infection in patients not identified by currently available non-nucleic acid amplification tests.

Lavoisier Akoolo, Samantha Schlachter, Rasel Khan, Laura Alter, Albert D Rojtman, Kristine Gedroic, Purnima Bhanot, Nikhat Parveen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Open life sciences · 2022
    Article
  4. Lessons Learned for Pathogenesis, Immunology, and Disease of Erythrocytic Parasites:Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lavoisier AkooloRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
Samantha SchlachterRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
Rasel KhanRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
Laura AlterRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
Albert D RojtmanMeridian Health, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Kristine GedroicThe Gedroic Center, Morristown, NJ, USA.
Purnima BhanotRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
Nikhat ParveenRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA. Parveeni@njms.rutgers.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0592-0693
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USJersey Shore University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTicks transmit Babesia microti, the causative agents of babesiosis in North America and Europe. Babesiosis is now endemic in Northeastern USA and affects people of all ages. Babesia species infect erythrocytes and can be transmitted through blood transfusion. Whole blood and blood products, which are not tested for Babesia, can cause transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB) resulting in severe consequences in the immuno-compromised patients. The purpose of this study was epidemiological evaluation of babesiosis in a tick-infested state.

resultsWe examined blood samples from 192 patients who visited clinics during the active tick-borne diseases season, using a newly developed qPCR assay that uses the specific molecular beacon probe. Due to the absence of clear symptomology, clinical laboratories did not test 131 samples by IFA, FISH or microscopic examination of Giemsa-stained blood smears. Babesia infection was detected in all age groups by FISH and microscopy; notably patients >40 years of age represented 64% of tested samples and 13% were younger patients. We tested all samples using qPCR and found that 38% were positive for Babesia. Of 28 samples that were positive by FISH, 27 (96%) were also positive by qPCR indicating high congruency between nucleic acid based tests. Interestingly, of 78 asymptomatic samples not tested by FISH, 22 were positive by our qPCR. Direct detection of Babesia relies upon microscopic examination of patient blood smears, which is labor intensive, difficult to scale up, requires specific expertise and is hence, often not performed. In fact, a clinical laboratory examined only 23 of 86 blood samples obtained from two different counties by microscopy. By considering individuals positive for Babesia infection when results from currently available microscopy, FISH or serological tests were positive, we found that our qPCR is highly sensitive (96.2%) and showed a specificity of 70.5% for Babesia.

conclusionRobust qPCR using specific probes can be highly useful for efficient and appropriate diagnosis of babesiosis in patients in conjunction with conventional diagnostics, or as a stand-alone test, especially for donated blood screening. The use of a nucleic acid amplification test based screening of blood and blood products could prevent TTB.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsBabesia microtiBabesiosisBase SequenceChildChild, PreschoolDNA, ProtozoanFemaleFluoroimmunoassayHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMaleDNA, ProtozoanRNA, Ribosomal, 18SBabesia microtiBabesiosis detectionBlood-borne diseaseNucleic acid amplification testParasitic diseaseQuantitative PCRTick-borne infection

Identifiers

PMID28088177
PMCPMC5237571
OpenAlexW2578730893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.