ArticleBMC veterinary research2018
Assessment of a rtPCR for the detection of virulent and benign Dichelobacter nodosus, the causative agent of ovine footrot, in Australia.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serological Diversity ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Prevalence ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Estimating Clinically Relevant Cut-Off Values for a High-Throughput Quantitative Real-Time PCR Detecting Bacterial Respiratory Pathogens in Cattle.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- The prevalence of Dichelobacter nodosus in clinically footrot-free sheep flocks: a comparative field study on elimination strategies.BMC veterinary research · 2020Article
- The Consequences of Stigma for Knowledge Production: Sheep Producers' Attitudes to Footrot Diagnostics and Control in Australia.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for detection of aprV2 positive Dichelobacter nodosus in-field by secondary users.BMC research notes · 2019Article
- Optimization of a Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) Assay for In-Field Detection ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOvine footrot is a highly contagious bacterial disease of sheep, costing the Australian sheep industry millions of dollars annually. Dichelobacter nodosus, the causative agent of footrot, is a gram-negative anaerobe classed into virulent and benign strains as determined by thermostability of their respective protesases. Current methods for detection of D. nodosus are difficult and time-consuming, however new molecular techniques capable of rapidly detecting and typing D. nodosus have been reported.
resultsA competitive real-time PCR (rtPCR) method, based on the ability to detect a 2 nucleotide difference in the aprV2 (virulent) and aprB2 (benign) extracellular protease gene has been tested on Australian samples for determining detection rates, along with clinically relevant cut-off values and performance in comparison to the traditional culturing methods. The rtPCR assay was found to have a specificity of 98.3% for virulent and 98.7% for benign detection from samples collected. Sheep with clinical signs of footrot showed a detection rate for virulent strains of 81.1% and for benign strains of 18.9%. A cut-off value of a Ct of 35 was found to be the most appropriate for use in Victoria for detection of sheep carrying virulent D. nodosus.
conclusionsIn summary, the rtPCR assay is significantly more capable of detecting D. nodosus than culturing, while there is no significant difference seen in virotyping between the two methods.
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.