ArticleCurrent microbiology2020
Evaluation of BOX-PCR and REP-PCR as Molecular Typing Tools for Antarctic Streptomyces.
Article in Current microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomass Seedling Trays Drive Rhizosphere Microbiome Restructuring and PGPR Enrichment in Tomato.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring genetic diversity and genomic insights of Bacillus subtilis isolates from cassava rhizosphere using molecular barcoding and whole genome sequencing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Genetic diversity, mating type and pathogenicity of two3 Biotech · 2024Article
- Genetic Diversity and Anti-Oxidative Potential of Streptomyces spp. Isolated from Unexplored Niches of Meghalaya, India.Current microbiology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular studies led to the resurgence of natural products research from genus Streptomyces, already known for their long history and importance for the pharmaceutical industry. However, species belonging to this genus are difficult to identify and the most commonly used techniques, which are based on 16S rRNA sequencing, do not discriminate between related species. In this work, amplification profiles generated from BOX-PCR and REP-PCR of 49 Antarctic soil streptomycetes were compared to evaluate the diversity present in the group and to characterize the bacterial isolates, along with some 16S rRNA amplifications. The BOX-A1R primer exhibit clearer amplification fragments, different from the amplification patterns obtained using the REP 1R and 2R primers. A higher diversity was observed with REP-PCR amplifications, even though a larger number of fragments was obtained with BOX-A1R primer amplifications. There are at least four isolates that showed great similarity (about 90%) in both techniques. In other hand, there are two others that are 90% similar in BOX-PCR, but distant in REP-PCR, showing only 40% of similarity. Results of the combination of BOX-PCR and REP-PCR represent a simple and low-cost method to discriminate between Streptomyces strains. There is no species identification with only the 16S rRNA, most isolates seem to be related to S. globisporus. Further studies added to the obtained results may provide better data to help the characterization of these microorganisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32939638What 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.