ArticleJournal of virological methods2020
Mycoplasma detection in a historical arbovirus repository: Commercial kit comparison and implications for improved repository management.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Arbovirus Reference Collection (ARC) contains viral isolates from both environmental and human sources that are maintained in the laboratory through passage in suckling mouse brain and/or vertebrate and invertebrate cell culture. There has been increased concern regarding the effect of mycoplasma contamination on virus growth and its impact on research and phenotypic analysis. Therefore, quality control testing of virus preparations has become a routine part of the ARC quality assurance program. We compared the performance of three kits - the PCR Mycoplasma Detection Kit (ABM), the VenorGem Mycoplasma Detection Kit (Sigma), and the MycoAlert Mycoplasma Detection Kit (Lonza) - against a reference mycoplasma detection assay from the American Tissue Culture Collection (ATCC) using 744 virus preparations in the ARC, representing 721 unique viruses comprising twelve families and unclassified viruses. We found the ABM kit had the highest sensitivity and specificity, followed by the Sigma kit and Lonza kit, when compared to the ATCC kit. An increase in false positives was observed for the Lonza kit for preparations recently passaged in suckling mouse. Our data supports previously reported observations; that once introduced a specific species of mycoplasma is maintained within a lab.
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.