ArticleMolecular medicine reports2018
Amplification of bacterial genomic DNA from all ascitic fluids with a highly sensitive polymerase chain reaction.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- An integrated centrifugation-washing-lysis method significantly improves microbiological diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Gut-Microbiota Dysbiosis in Stroke-Prone Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats with Diet-Induced Steatohepatitis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing Method for the Diagnosis of Suspected Ascitic Infection in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis in a Clinical Laboratory.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Clinical evaluation of bacterial DNA using an improved droplet digital PCR for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis diagnosis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to varying positive rates of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification, interpretation of conventional PCR results for non‑infectious ascites remains problematic. The present study developed a highly sensitive PCR protocol and investigated the positive rate of PCR for the 16S ribosomal (r)RNA gene in non‑infectious ascites. Following the design of a new PCR primer pair for the 16S rRNA gene (800F and 1400R), the sequences of PCR products were analyzed and the lower limit for bacterial DNA detection evaluated. The positive rate of PCR for 16S rRNA gene in non‑infectious ascites was also evaluated. PCR with the primer pair amplified the genomic DNA of 16S rRNA genes of major disease‑causing bacterial strains. Additionally, PCR with this primer pair provided highly sensitive detection of bacterial genomic DNA (lower limit, 0.1 pg of template DNA). When DNA samples isolated from ascites were used, the 16S rRNA gene was amplified independently of the presence of bacterial infection. PCR products contained the genomic DNA fragments of multiple bacterial species. Bacterial genomic DNA can be amplified from all ascitic fluids using a highly sensitive PCR protocol. Careful attention is required to interpret the results based on simple amplification of 16S rRNA gene with conventional PCR.
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.