ArticleJournal of applied genetics2019
AFLP protocol comparison for microbial diversity fingerprinting.
Article in Journal of applied genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lactic acid bacteria as an eco-friendly approach in plant production: Current state and prospects.Folia microbiologica · 2024Review
- Article
- RAPD and ERIC-PCR coupled with HRM for species identification of non-dysenteriae Shigella species; as a potential alternative method.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Microsatellite Typing, ITS Sequencing, AFLP Fingerprinting, MALDI-TOF MS, and Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy Analysis ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last decade, several methods based on genomic DNA have been developed for the identification and genotyping of prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. These genomic methods differ regarding taxonomic range, discriminatory power, reproducibility, and ease of interpretation and standardization. The amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) technique is a very powerful DNA fingerprinting technique for DNA of any source or complexity, varying in both size and base composition. In addition, this method shows high discriminatory power and good reproducibility allowing it to be efficient in discriminating at both the species and strain levels. The development and application of AFLP have allowed significant progress in the study of biodiversity and taxonomy of microorganisms. In the last years, the Applied Biosystems AFLP Microbial Fingerprinting Kit, now out of production, was widely used in various studies to perform AFLP characterization of selected bacteria strains (described by Vos et al. (Nucleic Acids Res 23(21):4407-4414, 1995)). Its replacement gives the possibility for laboratories to continue the use of the previous AFLP data as a reference for bacteria genetic fingerprinting analysis in biodiversity studies. To overcome this issue a result comparison, by using an improved AFLP protocol and the AFLP commercial kit, was performed. In particular, previous results on different species (Listeria monocytogenes, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Streptococcus thermophilus) obtained with the commercial kit were compared with the improved AFLP procedure to validate the protocol. When compared with the AFLP Microbial Fingerprinting Kit, the improved protocol shows high reproducibility, resolution, and overall, is a faster method with lower costs.
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.