ArticleVeterinary research communications2025
Establishment of a 23S rRNA assay for Brucella and its application in evaluating bacterial growth status.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Diagnostic Accuracy Study of Combined OMP22-PCR and SAT for Brucellosis in Xinjiang, China.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- The application value and challenges of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection after arthroplasty.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brucellosis presents notable diagnostic challenges, particularly during the chronic phase of infection, due to the typically low bacterial load in tissues, which may evade detection by conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) methods. Traditional PCR techniques are susceptible to cross-reactions and can produce false-positive or false-negative results. Furthermore, bacteriological and serological tests have recognized limitations in sensitivity and specificity, potentially complicating accurate diagnosis. We developed a novel reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assay targeting Brucella species' highly abundant and conserved 23S rRNA gene to address these challenges. The 23S rRNA gene was selected as an optimal molecular target due to the approaches' number and genetic stability across Brucella strains. Primers were designed based on a conserved region (Sequence ID: NR_103168.2) to ensure broad applicability, and their specificity was verified through BLAST analysis. A key feature of the 23S-RT-qPCR method is incorporating a reverse transcription step to convert RNA into complementary DNA (cDNA), which may enhance detection sensitivity. Using the Brucella S2 vaccine strain as a template, experimental results indicated that the 23S-RT-qPCR method reduced cycle threshold (Ct) values by approximately 2-3 units (14.67-16.74) compared to conventional qPCR. Statistical analysis using a T-test showed that this reduction was significant (P < 0.05). The performance of the 23S-RT-qPCR method was further evaluated using clinical samples and compared with the IS711 detection method. The 23S-RT-qPCR method demonstrated a lower false-positive rate (2.6%) and false-negative rate (7.6%) compared to the IS711 method, which had a false-positive rate of 5.2% and a false-negative rate of 7.6%. These results suggest that the 23S-RT-qPCR method offers improved sensitivity and specificity, reducing false-positive and false-negative rates in clinical sample analysis. Overall, this method may provide a more reliable approach for diagnosing chronic brucellosis and could have broader applicability in detecting other bacterial pathogens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39982617What 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.