ArticleThe Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research2017
Comparison of three nucleic acid-based tests for detecting
Article in The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tick-Borne Diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review of Pathogens, Research Focus, and Implications for Public Health.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
- Molecular prevalence and diagnostic gene targets of Anaplasma, Babesia, Theileria, and Trypanosoma in cattle and buffaloes across Southeast Asia (2015-2025): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Veterinary world · 2026Article
- Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and tick-borne diseases affecting communal cattle and the control methods practiced by farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa.Veterinary world · 2025Article
- CRISPR-Cas-Based Pen-Side Diagnostic Tests forMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Molecular diagnosis and characterization of Anaplasma marginale and Ehrlichia ruminantium infecting beef cattle of Maputo Province, Mozambique.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Microbial community characteristics and pathogens detection inFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Temporal Dynamics ofMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Unravelling the diversity ofCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2023Article
- Epidemiology of Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens in Domestic Ruminants across Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region from 1980 until 2021: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Detection and Characterisation of Anaplasma marginale and A. centrale in South Africa.Veterinary sciences · 2018Review
- Co-infections with multiple genotypes of Anaplasma marginale in cattle indicate pathogen diversity.Parasites & vectors · 2018Article
- Characterization of Anaplasma marginale subsp. centrale Strains by Use of msp1aS Genotyping Reveals a Wildlife Reservoir.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
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 at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several nucleic acid-based assays have been developed for detecting Anaplasma marginale and Anaplasma centrale in vectors and hosts, making the choice of method to use in endemic areas difficult. We evaluated the ability of the reverse line blot (RLB) hybridisation assay, two nested polymerase chain reaction (nPCR) assays and a duplex real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay to detect A. marginale and A. centrale infections in cattle (n = 66) in South Africa. The lowest detection limits for A. marginale plasmid DNA were 2500 copies by the RLB assay, 250 copies by the nPCR and qPCR assays and 2500, 250 and 25 copies of A. centrale plasmid DNA by the RLB, nPCR and qPCR assays respectively. The qPCR assay detected more A. marginale- and A. centrale-positive samples than the other assays, either as single or mixed infections. Although the results of the qPCR and nPCR tests were in agreement for the majority (38) of A. marginale-positive samples, 13 samples tested negative for A. marginale using nPCR but positive using qPCR. To explain this discrepancy, the target sequence region of the nPCR assay was evaluated by cloning and sequencing the msp1β gene from selected field samples. The results indicated sequence variation in the internal forward primer (AM100) area amongst the South African A. marginale msp1β sequences, resulting in false negatives. We propose the use of the duplex qPCR assay in future studies as it is more sensitive and offers the benefits of quantification and multiplex detection of both Anaplasma spp.
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.