ArticlePloS one2018
Automated IS6110-based fingerprinting of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Reaching unprecedented discriminatory power and versatility.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
- Molecular typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a review of current methods, databases, softwares, and analytical tools.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Exploring the usefulness of molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis in Africa: a systematic review.International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral technical hurdles and limitations have restricted the use of IS6110 restriction fragment length polymorphism (IS6110 RFLP), the most effective typing method for detecting recent tuberculosis (TB) transmission events. This has prompted us to conceive an alternative modality, IS6110-5'3'FP, a plasmid-based cloning approach coupled to a single PCR amplification of differentially labeled 5' and 3' IS6110 polymorphic ends and their automated fractionation on a capillary sequencer. The potential of IS6110-5'3'FP to be used as an alternative to IS6110 RFLP has been previously demonstrated, yet further technical improvements are still required for optimal discriminatory power and versatility.
objectivesHere we introduced critical amendments to the original IS6110-5'3'FP protocol and compared its performance to that of 24-loci multiple interspersed repetitive unit-variable number tandem repeats (MIRU-VNTR), the current standard method for TB transmission analyses.
methodsIS6110-5'3'FP protocol modifications involved: (i) the generation of smaller-sized polymorphic fragments for efficient cloning and PCR amplification, (ii) omission of the plasmid amplification step in E. coli for shorter turnaround times, (iii) the use of more stable fluorophores for increased sensitivity, (iv) automated subtraction of background fluorescent signals, and (v) the automated conversion of fluorescent peaks into binary data.
resultsIn doing so, the overall turnaround time of IS6110-5'3'FP was reduced to 4 hours. The new protocol allowed detecting almost all 5' and 3' IS6110 polymorphic fragments of any given strain, including IS6110 high-copy number Beijing strains. IS6110-5'3'FP proved much more discriminative than 24-loci MIRU-VNTR, particularly with strains of the M. tuberculosis lineage 4.
conclusionsThe IS6110-5'3'FP protocol described herein reached the optimal discriminatory potential of IS6110 fingerprinting and proved more accurate than 24-loci MIRU-VNTR in estimating recent TB transmission. The method, which is highly cost-effective, was rendered versatile enough to prompt its evaluation as an automatized solution for a TB integrated molecular surveillance.
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.