Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35625199›Full record

ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Bacteriophage Tail Proteins as a Tool for Bacterial Pathogen Recognition-A Literature Review.

Karolina Filik, Bożena Szermer-Olearnik, Sabina Oleksy, Jan Brykała, Ewa Brzozowska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Bacteriophage Therapy AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Single cell viral tagging ofGut microbes · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Genomic analysis of3 Biotech · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Rapid and Specific Detection ofACS applied bio materials · 2024
    Article
  19. Isolation and Characterization of a NovelAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Karolina FilikHirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, St. R. Weigl 12, 51-167 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8086-038X
Bożena Szermer-OlearnikHirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, St. R. Weigl 12, 51-167 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-1451-4227
Sabina OleksyHirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, St. R. Weigl 12, 51-167 Wroclaw, Poland.
Jan BrykałaHirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, St. R. Weigl 12, 51-167 Wroclaw, Poland.
Ewa BrzozowskaHirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, St. R. Weigl 12, 51-167 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0922-3625

Funding

National Science Center UMO-2017/26/E/NZ1/00249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, a number of bacterial detection methods have been developed to replace time-consuming culture methods. One interesting approach is to mobilize the ability of phage tail proteins to recognize and bind to bacterial hosts. In this paper, the authors provide an overview of the current methodologies in which phage proteins play major roles in detecting pathogenic bacteria. Authors focus on proteins capable of recognizing highly pathogenic strains, such as

Indexed as

bacteriophagesdiagnosticpathogens detectionRBPtail fiber protein

Identifiers

PMID35625199
PMCPMC9137617

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.