ArticlePloS one2018
Set-up and validation of mycobacterial interspersed repetitive unit-variable number of tandem repeat (MIRU-VNTR) analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis using BioNumerics software.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Phage Therapy for Pulmonary Infection of Mouse by Liquid Aerosol-ExposureInfection and drug resistance · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective was to describe and validate a new and alternative software procedure for 24-locus mycobacterial interspersed repetitive unit-variable number-tandem repeat (MIRU-VNTR) typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) based on the multipurpose BioNumerics software. DNA from randomly selected isolates of Mtb from two European laboratories, including external control samples for MIRU-VNTR typing, were analysed. Samples were genotyped using the commercial 24-locus VNTR typing kit from GenoScreen. The PCR amplified fragments were separated by capillary electrophoresis. For the subsequent analyses, the currently used software GeneMapper was compared with BioNumerics. The endpoint was the level of concordance when comparing genotyping results obtained from BioNumerics with results obtained from GeneMapper and the ECDC proficiency study reference results. Also, the number of necessary manual standard size corrections and allele assignments in the two different software methods were compared. In total, 272 DNA samples, including the ECDC proficiency panel, were analysed. For all samples, there were 100% concordance of results. For a randomly selected set of 96 samples the numbers of manual corrections needed for size standards were 199 with GeneMapper versus zero for BioNumerics. The numbers of manual corrections for allele assignments were 122 with GeneMapper versus 16 with BioNumerics. In conclusion, we have validated the multipurpose software BioNumerics for standard 24-locus MIRU-VNTR typing and the software shows promising benefits in terms of simplification and minimization of hand-on time.
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.