ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2024
Comparing microbiological and molecular diagnostic tools for the surveillance of anthrax.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in detecting category A biothreat agents: Toward symptom-driven sensing strategies.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2026Review
- Complete genome ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026Article
- Molecular Characterization, SNP-Based Strain Profiling, and Seroprevalence ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- A Ln-MOF Sensor Based on Dual-Signal Response and Logic Gating for the Ratio Fluorescence Detection of Anthrax Biomarkers.Luminescence : the journal of biological and chemical luminescence · 2026Article
- Geometric Optimization of GMR Biosensors with Trapezoidal Magnetic Flux Concentrators for DetectingSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hair and wool of ruminants and canines as environmental vectors of Bacillus anthracis and potential human exposure in anthrax-endemic regions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Tropical infectious diseases and skin manifestations: a diagnostic framework.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Advances in rapid detection technologies for zoonotic diseases: a one health-oriented review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Decoding the anomalies: a genome-based analysis ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The diagnosis of anthrax, a zoonotic disease caused by Bacillus anthracis can be complicated by detection of closely related species. Conventional diagnosis of anthrax involves microscopy, culture identification of bacterial colonies and molecular detection. Genetic markers used are often virulence gene targets such as B. anthracis protective antigen (pagA, also called BAPA, occurring on plasmid pXO1), lethal factor (lef, on pXO1), capsule-encoding capB/C (located on pXO2) as well as chromosomal Ba-1. Combinations of genetic markers using real-time/quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) are used to confirm B. anthracis from culture but can also be used directly on diagnostic samples to avoid propagation and its associated biorisks and for faster identification. We investigated how the presence of closely related species could complicate anthrax diagnoses with and without culture to standardise the use of genetic markers using qPCR for accurate anthrax diagnosis. Using blood smears from 2012-2020 from wildlife mortalities (n = 1708) in Kruger National Park in South Africa where anthrax is endemic, we contrasted anthrax diagnostic results based on qPCR, microscopy, and culture. From smears, 113/1708 grew bacteria in culture, from which 506 isolates were obtained. Of these isolates, only 24.7% (125 isolates) were positive for B. anthracis based on genetic markers or microscopy. However, among these, merely 4/125 (3.2%) were confirmed B. anthracis isolates (based on morphology, microscopy, and sensitivity testing to penicillin and gamma-phage) from the blood smear, likely due to poor survival of spores on stored smears. This study identified B. cereus sensu lato, which included B. cereus and B. anthracis, Peribacillus spp., and Priestia spp. clusters using gyrB gene in selected bacterial isolates positive for pagA region using BAPA probe. Using qPCR on blood smears, 52.1% (890 samples) tested positive for B. anthracis based on one or a combination of genetic markers which included the 25 positive controls. Notably, the standard lef primer set displayed the lowest specificity and accuracy. The Ba-1+BAPA+lef combination showed 100% specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy. Various marker combinations, such as Ba-1+capB, BAPA+capB, Ba-1+BAPA+capB+lef, and BAPA+lef+capB, all demonstrated 100.0% specificity and 98.7% accuracy, while maintaining a sensitivity of 96.6%. Using Ba-1+BAPA+lef+capB, as well as Ba-1+BAPA+lef with molecular diagnosis accurately detects B. anthracis in the absence of bacterial culture. Systematically combining microscopy and molecular markers holds promise for notably reducing false positives. This significantly enhances the detection and surveillance of diseases like anthrax in southern Africa and beyond and reduces the need for propagation of the bacteria in culture.
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.