ArticlePloS one2020
Establishment and application of isothermal amplification techniques for the detection of heat-stable I enterotoxin of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research of childhood tuberculosis in suspected populations by molecular methods: A multicenter study in China.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Increased sensitivity of enterotoxigenicBiotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to establish isothermal multiple self-matching initiated amplification (IMSA) and cross-priming amplification (CPA) methods to detect heat-stable I enterotoxin (STa)-producing enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC). To avoid cross-contamination of aerosols, a closed independent isothermal amplification tube (IAT) was used to perform the assays. Optimal amplification conditions for IMSA and CPA were selected for specificity and sensitivity, respectively, and for clinical relevance. Both IMSA and CPA assays could specifically recognize all 3-STa positive strains in which they fluoresced green under UV light, but not in the 11 non-STa strains. The results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that the detection limit of the IMSA assay was 1.5 ×102 CFU, comparable to real-time PCR, but 10-fold more sensitive than CPA and LAMP. Further evaluation of the detection methods of swine diarrhea samples demonstrated that both could successfully identify the DNA of STa-producing ETEC in clinical specimens, consistent with LAMP and qPCR methods. The results demonstrated that the IMSA and CPA methods had high specificity and sensitivity with rapid detection of ETEC, so having great potential in clinical applications.
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.