ArticlePloS one2020
Identification of candidate host serum and saliva biomarkers for a better diagnosis of active and latent tuberculosis infection.
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 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging insights into CC and CXC chemokines and their receptors in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection.FEBS open bio · 2026Review
- Biomarkers of pulmonary fibrosis in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and saliva. Study methods and pathophysiological significance.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Exploring non-sputum biosignatures for tuberculosis triage and diagnosis in children living with HIV.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care triage tests for pulmonary tuberculosis using host blood protein biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- DNA methylation signatures of severe RSV infection in infants: evidence from non-invasive saliva samples.Epigenetics & chromatin · 2025Article
- The Role of Salivary Diagnostic Techniques in Screening for Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Overview of mucosal immunity and respiratory infections in children: a focus on Africa.Current opinion in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Differentiating Latent Tuberculosis from Active Tuberculosis Through Activation Phenotypes and Chemokine Markers HLA-DR, CD38, MCP-1, and RANTES: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomarker insights · 2025Article
- Exploring the Potential of Exosomes as Biomarkers in Tuberculosis and Other Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Antibodies as key mediators of protection againstFrontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Challenges and the Way forward in Diagnosis and Treatment of Tuberculosis Infection.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Review
- Advancing personalized medicine for tuberculosis through the application of immune profiling.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Review
- Implications of Using Host Response-Based Molecular Diagnostics on the Management of Bacterial and Viral Infections: A Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Proteomics in Biomarker Discovery for Tuberculosis: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Article
- Human Saliva as a Diagnostic Specimen for Early Detection of Inflammatory Biomarkers by Real-Time RT-PCR.Inflammation · 2021Review
- Host-Based Biomarkers in Saliva for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Children: A Mini-Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In our work, we aim to identify new candidate host biomarkers to discriminate between active TB patients (n = 28), latent infection (LTBI; n = 27) and uninfected (NoTBI; n = 42) individuals. For that, active TB patients and their contacts were recruited that donated serum and saliva samples. A multiplex assay was performed to study the concentration of different cytokines, chemokines and growth factors. Proteins with significant differences between groups were selected and logistic regression and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to assess the diagnostic accuracy. The best marker combinations that discriminate active TB from NoTBI contacts were [IP-10 + IL-7] in serum and [Fractalkine + IP-10 + IL-1α + VEGF] in saliva. Best discrimination between active TB and LTBI was achieved using [IP-10 + BCA-1] in serum (AUC = 0.83) and IP-10 in saliva (p = 0.0007; AUC = 0.78). The levels of TNFα (p = 0.003; AUC = 0.73) in serum and the combination of [Fractalkine+IL-12p40] (AUC = 0.83) in saliva, were able to differentiate between NoTBI and LTBI contacts. In conclusion, different individual and combined protein markers could help to discriminate between active TB and both uninfected and latently-infected contacts. The most promising ones include [IP-10 + IL-7], [IP-10 + BCA-1] and TNFα in serum and [Fractalkine + IP-10 + IL-1α + VEGF], IP-10 and [Fractalkine+IL-12p40] in saliva.
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.