Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31784670›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Isolation and comparative genomics of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from cattle and their attendants in South India.

Kannan Palaniyandi, Narender Kumar, Maroudam Veerasamy, Ahmed Kabir Refaya, Chandrakumar Dolla, Subramanyam Balaji, Dhanaraj Baskaran, Kannan Thiruvengadam, Ananthi Rajendran, Sujatha Narayanan and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Recovery ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Genome analyses of 174 strains ofMicrobial genomics · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Kannan PalaniyandiICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India. kannanvet@rediffmail.com.
Narender KumarDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Maroudam VeerasamyTranslational Research Platform for Veterinary Biologicals (TRPVB), Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, India.
Ahmed Kabir RefayaICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7580-5477
Chandrakumar DollaICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India.
Subramanyam BalajiICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India.
Dhanaraj BaskaranICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India.
Kannan ThiruvengadamICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India.
Ananthi RajendranICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India.
Sujatha NarayananICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India.
Dhinakar RajTranslational Research Platform for Veterinary Biologicals (TRPVB), Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, India.
Soumya SwaminathanWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sharon J PeacockDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom. sjp97@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1718-2782

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N501864/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The major human pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis is rarely reported to cause disease in other animals. Cases in livestock are thought to occur through contact with infected handlers, but previous studies evaluating putative livestock-human transmission used typing techniques with limited resolution. Here, we undertook cross-sectional surveillance for tuberculosis in 271 livestock handlers and 167 cattle on three farms in Chennai, India and defined the relatedness of cultured isolates using whole genome sequencing. Humans and livestock were screened for active mycobacterial infection, and opportunistic post-mortem examination was performed on comparative intradermal test-positive cattle that died. Four cattle and 6 handlers on two farms were culture-positive for M. tuberculosis; M. bovis was not isolated. All 10 isolates (one from each case) belonged to Lineage 1. Pairwise genome comparisons of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) differences ranged from 1 to 600 SNPs, but 3 isolate pairs were less than 5 SNPs different. Two pairs were from handlers and the third pair were from two cattle on the same farm. The minimum pairwise SNP difference between a cattle and human isolate was >250 SNPs. Our study confirms the presence of M. tuberculosis infection in cattle in India, sequencing of which characterised relatedness between human and cattle-derived isolates.

Indexed as

AnimalsCattleComparative Genomic HybridizationCross-Sectional StudiesDNA, BacterialHumansIndiaLungMycobacterium tuberculosisPhylogenyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSputumTuberculosis, BovineWhole Genome SequencingDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID31784670
PMCPMC6884536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.