ArticleBMC microbiology2019
Sensitive and immunogen-specific serological detection of Rodentibacter pneumotropicus infections in mice.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification-lateral flow dipstick (LAMP-LFD) assay and on-site rapid detection evaluation for Rodentibacter heylii and Rodentibacter pneumotropicus.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Expanding the Spectrum of Uropathogens: A Rare Human Urinary Tract Infection by Rodentibacter pneumotropicus.Cureus · 2026Article
- AcuteMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Metagenomic insights into the composition and function of the gut microbiota of mice infected withFrontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- A qRT-PCR Method Capable of Quantifying Specific Microorganisms Compared to NGS-Based Metagenome Profiling Data.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Severe pneumonia in a street rat (Open veterinary journalArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRodentibacter (R.) pneumotropicus colonizes the respiratory and urogenital tracts of laboratory mice with a reported moderate serological prevalence from 4 to 13%. Thus, regular tests to identify this pathogen in mice are recommended for animal facilities. However, a recent study indicated that current serological assays are partly insensitive, as C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice infected with R. pneumotropicus were incorrectly screened as seronegative.
resultsHere, we report a systematic analysis of protein and lipopolysaccharides antigens by immunoblot and ELISA that allowed establishing a sensitive test system able to differentiate between R. pneumotropicus and the closely related species R. heylii. Furthermore, the main immunogen, designated as 'characteristic antigen for Rodentibacter of laboratory origin 1' (CARLO-1), was identified by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis followed by immunoblot and tandem mass spectrometry in a preparation of outer membrane proteins. An indirect ELISA relying on the recombinantly expressed protein provided high sensitivity, specificity, and selectivity. The corresponding carlo1 gene was highly conserved (> 97%) among 21 isolates of R. pneumotropicus and R. heylii.
conclusionThe newly identified protein CARLO-1 is well suited for the sensitive and specific serological detection of Rodentibacter infections in mice. Indirect differentiation of R. pneumotropicus and R. heylii infections may be possible using an ELISA based on a whole-cell antigen preparation. All four established ELISA systems using a whole-cell preparation, lipopolysaccharides, outer-membrane proteins and protein CARLO-1 as antigen, respectively, outperformed a commercial ELISA in terms of sensitivity.
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.