ArticleScientific reports2024
In silico study to explore the mechanism of Toxoplasma-induced inflammation and target therapy based on sero and salivary Toxoplasma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
We aimed to assess salivary and seroprevalence of Toxoplasma immunoglobulins in risky populations and evaluate drug docking targeting TgERP. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Alexandria University hospitals' outpatient clinics. 192 participants were enrolled from September 2022 to November 2023. Anti-Toxoplasma IgG and IgM were determined in serum and saliva by ELISA. An in-Silico study examined TgERP's protein-protein interactions (PPIs) with pro-inflammatory cytokine receptors, anti-inflammatory cytokine, cell cycle progression regulatory proteins, a proliferation marker, and nuclear envelope integrity-related protein Lamin B1. Our findings revealed that anti-T. gondii IgG were detected in serum (66.1%) and saliva (54.7%), with 2.1% of both samples were positive for IgM. Salivary IgG had 75.59% sensitivity, 86.15% specificity, 91.40% PPV, 64.40% NPP, 79.17% accuracy and fair agreement with serum IgG. On the other hand, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy in detecting salivary IgM were 75.0%, 99.47%, 75.0%, 99.47%, and 98.96%. AUC 0.859 indicates good discriminatory power. Examined synthetic drugs and natural products can target specific amino acids residues of TgERP that lie at the same binding interface with LB1 and Ki67, subsequently, hindering their interaction. Hence, salivary samples can be a promising diagnostic approach. The studied drugs can counteract the pro-inflammatory action of TgERP.
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.