ArticleParasites & vectors2019
Assessment of differences between DNA content of cell-cultured and freely suspended oocysts of Cryptosporidium parvum and their suitability as DNA standards in qPCR.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cryptosporidium parvum and bovine coronavirus in naturally and experimentally exposed calves: clinical outcome and pathogen shedding.Veterinary research · 2026Article
- Apical-out bovine intestinal organoids as an infection model forCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2025Article
- A Simple Alcohol-based Method of Oocyst Inactivation for Use in the Development of Detection Assays forFood and waterborne parasitology · 2022Article
- Comparison of Three Real-Time PCR Assays Targeting the SSU rRNA Gene, the COWP Gene and the DnaJ-Like Protein Gene for the Diagnosis ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Extracts of pine bark (Pinus sylvestris) inhibit Cryptosporidium parvum growth in cell culture.Parasitology research · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough more modern methods are available, quantitative PCR (qPCR) is reproducible, sensitive and specific with instruments and expertise readily available in many laboratories. As such, the use of qPCR in Cryptosporidium research is well established and still widely used by researchers globally. This method depends upon the generation of standards at different concentrations to generate standard curves subsequently used for the quantification of DNA.
methodsWe assessed four types of DNA template used to generate standard curves in drug screening studies involving Cryptosporidium spp.: (i) serially diluted Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (10
resultsSerial dilutions of both cell culture and pure oocyst suspension DNA template yielded better linearity than cell culture derived standards, with dilutions of 10
conclusionsFor many studies involving Cryptosporidium, only relative DNA content is required and as such, the superior linearity afforded by freely suspended oocysts and diluted DNA template (from either cell culture derived standards or freely suspended oocysts) will allow for more accurate relative quantification in each assay. Parasite division in the cell culture standards likely explains the higher DNA content found. These standards, therefore, have the potential to more accurately reflect DNA content in cell culture assays, and despite more modern methods available for absolute quantification, i.e. droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), the ubiquity of qPCR for the foreseeable future encourages further investigation into the reduced linearity observed in these standards such as varying oocyst seeding density, non-linear growth rates and assay efficiency.
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.