Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39289457›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium isolated from fish, vegetables, and humans.

Asmaa Gaber Mubarak, Mona Ahmed El-Zamkan, Waleed Younis, Sahar Osman Saleh, Hanan H Abd-Elhafeez, Asmaa Gahlan Yoseef

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Genomic insights intoFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Asmaa Gaber MubarakDepartment of Zoonoses, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, 83523, Egypt. a_mubarek@vet.svu.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8968-0529
Mona Ahmed El-ZamkanDepartment of Food Hygiene and Control, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, 83523, Egypt.
Waleed YounisDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, 83523, Egypt.
Sahar Osman SalehDepartment of Zoonoses, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, 83523, Egypt.
Hanan H Abd-ElhafeezDepartment of Cell and Tissues, Faculty of Vet. Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, 71526, Egypt. hhnnzz91@aun.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2547-0709
Asmaa Gahlan YoseefDepartment of Zoonoses, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, 83523, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enterococci, common hospital-acquired infections in immunocompromised patients, have garnered attention in clinical microbiology. To determine the clinical relevance of enterococci as food-borne pathogens, 116 fish, 90 vegetables, and 120 human diarrheal samples were tested for E. faecalis and E. faecium pathogenicity. Conventionally, 69 of 326 (21.17%) samples were positive for Enterococcus species, 52 (15.95%) of which were molecularly classified as E. faecalis and 13 (3.99%) as E. faecium. The E. faecalis contamination percentage of fresh fish (19.70%) was higher than frozen fish (4%). Cauliflower had the highest E. faecalis percentage (16.67%) when fish and vegetable samples didn't harbor the E. faecium atpA gene. 23.33% and 10.83% of participants' samples were molecularly confirmed as E. faecalis and E. faecium positive, respectively. E. faecalis isolates had all virulence genes, with gels being the most common (65.38%), while cylA and asa1 genes couldn't be detected in E. faecium isolates. E. faecalis showed the highest resistance against vancomycin and tetracycline (69.23%), whereas E. faecium extremely resisted tetracycline (76.92%) and erythromycin (69.23%) with the recognition of MDR among 44.2% of E. faecalis and 38.5% of E. faecium isolates. The great similarity of our isolates showed the clinical importance of food-borne antibiotic-resistant enterococci.

Indexed as

Enterococcus faecalisEnterococcus faeciumFishesGenotypeVegetablesAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsFood MicrobiologyGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypeVirulence FactorsAnti-Bacterial AgentsVirulence FactorsBiofilmEnterococcus speciesResistanceSequenceVirulence

Identifiers

PMID39289457
PMCPMC11408632

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.