Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34354122›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) with lateral flow detection for three Anaplasma species of importance to livestock health.

Andrea Salazar, Francisco M Ochoa-Corona, Justin L Talley, Bruce H Noden

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Microscopic and molecular detection ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Rapid and Sensitive Detection ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea SalazarDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74075, USA.
Francisco M Ochoa-CoronaDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74075, USA.
Justin L TalleyDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74075, USA.
Bruce H NodenDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74075, USA. bruce.noden@okstate.edu.
Oklahoma State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anaplasma marginale, A. ovis, and A. phagocytophilum are the causative agents of bovine anaplasmosis, ovine anaplasmosis, and granulocytic anaplasmosis, respectively. The gold standard for diagnosis of post-acute and long-term persistent infections is the serological cELISA, which does not discriminate between Anaplasma species and requires highly equipped laboratories and trained personnel. This study addresses the development of a rapid, isothermal, sensitive, species-specific RPA assays to detect three Anaplasma species in blood and cELISA A. marginale-positive serum samples. Three RPA primer and probe sets were designed targeting msp4 genes of each Anaplasma species and the internal control (GAPDH gene) for each assay. The limit of detection of gel-based or RPA-basic assays is 8.99 × 10

Indexed as

AnaplasmaAnaplasma marginaleAnaplasma ovisAnaplasma phagocytophilumAnaplasmosisAnimalsCattleDNA, BacterialLimit of DetectionNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesRecombinasesDNA, BacterialRecombinases

Identifiers

PMID34354122
PMCPMC8342517
OpenAlexW3187789832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.