ArticleMycopathologia2021
Comparison of PCR-RFLP with 21-plex PCR and rDNA Sequencing for Identification of Clinical Yeast Isolates.
Article in Mycopathologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Candiduria in catheterized ICU patients: epidemiology, molecular identification, and antifungal susceptibility.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2026Article
- Investigation of the antifungal activity of panobinostat, tamoxifen, and miltefosine alone and in combination with some conventional antifungal drugs against fluconazole-resistantIranian journal of microbiology · 2025Article
- Prevalence and antifungal susceptibility profiles ofCurrent medical mycology · 2025Article
- First Report of the Emerging PathogenJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Identification Methods for Pathogenic Yeasts: Challenges and Approaches.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-albicans Candida species and other rare yeasts have emerged as major opportunistic pathogens in fungal infections. Identification of opportunistic yeasts in developing countries is mainly performed by phenotypic assay, which are time-consuming and prone to errors. The aim of the present study was to evaluate PCR-RFLP as a routinely used identification technique for the most clinically important Candida species in Iran and make a comparison with a novel multiplex PCR, called 21-plex PCR. One hundred and seventy-three yeast isolates from clinical sources were selected and identified with sequence analysis of the D1/D2 domains of rDNA (LSU rDNA) sequencing as the gold standard method. The results were compared with those obtained by PCR-RFLP using MspI restriction enzyme and the 21-plex PCR. PCR-RFLP correctly identified 93.4% of common pathogenic Candida species (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, and P. kudriavsevii (= C. krusei)) and was able to identify 45.5% of isolates of the uncommon yeast species compared to the D1/D2 rDNA sequencing. Compared with PCR-RFLP, all common Candida species and 72.7% of uncommon yeast species were correctly identified by the 21-plex PCR. The application of the 21-plex PCR assay as a non-sequence-based molecular method for the identification of common and rare yeasts can reduce turnaround time and costs for the identification of clinically important yeasts and can be applied in resource-limited settings.
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.