ArticleViruses2019
Novel Tick
Article in Viruses, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of nanopore-based metagenome sequencing on tick-borne virus detection.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We screened ticks and human clinical specimens to detect and characterize tick phleboviruses and pathogenicity in vertebrates. Ticks were collected at locations in Istanbul (Northwest Anatolia, Thrace), Edirne, Kırklareli, and Tekirdağ (Thrace), Mersin (Mediterranean Anatolia), Adiyaman and Şanlıurfa (Southeastern Anatolia) provinces from 2013-2018 and were analyzed following morphological identification and pooling. Specimens from individuals with febrile disease or meningoencephalitic symptoms of an unknown etiology were also evaluated. The pools were screened via generic tick phlebovirus amplification assays and products were sequenced. Selected pools were used for cell culture and suckling mice inoculations and next generation sequencing (NGS). A total of 7492 ticks were screened in 609 pools where 4.2% were positive. A phylogenetic sequence clustering according to tick species was observed. No human samples were positive. NGS provided near-complete viral replicase coding sequences in three pools. A comprehensive analysis revealed three distinct, monophyletic virus genotypes, comprised of previously-described viruses from Anatolia and the Balkans, with unique fingerprints in conserved amino acid motifs in viral replicase. A novel tick phlebovirus group was discovered circulating in the Balkans and Turkey, with at least three genotypes or species. No evidence for replication in vertebrates or infections in clinical cases could be demonstrated.
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.