ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2018
Comparison of reverse hybridization and ompA sequencing methods applied on Chlamydia trachomatis strains from Tunisia.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and characterization of mixed infections ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- High-resolution multilocus sequence typing for Chlamydia trachomatis: improved results for clinical samples with low amounts of C. trachomatis DNA.BMC microbiology · 2021Article
- Comparison of reverse hybridization and ompA sequencing methods applied on Chlamydia trachomatis strains from Tunisia.MicrobiologyOpen · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two techniques based on ompA amplification of Chlamydia trachomatis were compared, being reverse hybridization (RHM) and ompA sequencing (OSA), to investigate the concordance between them and to study the epidemiological relevance of each method. In addition, phylogenetic analysis was performed on the ompA sequences. One hundred and seven C. trachomatis positive samples from Tunisian patients and female sex workers were analyzed using both the RHM and ompA sequencing. The overall genovar distribution obtained with both techniques was very similar. The RHM identified nine genovars, being B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K, where B, I, J, and K were only found in mixed infections versus 7 types for the OSA being D, E, F, G, H, I, and K. The agreement between both typing techniques was 87.8%. Both methods showed that genovar E was the most predominant type. In 24.3% of the analyzed samples, mixed infections were detected. In 96.1% of these, the genovar identified by OSA was also detected using the RHM. OmpA sequencing allowed determination of six genovar types that could not be typed using RHM. The analyses of ompA nucleotide variation in the 107 clinical specimens detected ompA genovar variants with distinct ompA mutational patterns for types D2, G1, G2, and H1. In conclusion, RHM and OSA showed a high agreement in C. trachomatis genotyping results with each having their specific benefits.
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.