ArticlePeerJ2025
Comparative genomic analysis of emerging non-typeable
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Clinical Characteristics and Molecular Epidemiology of Invasive NontypeableOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Resolving taxonomic uncertainties in the genusFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
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
Background: Methods: In response to a significant increase in invasive NTHi infections among persons living with HIV in metropolitan Atlanta during 2017-2018, we conducted a comparative genomic analysis of two predominant NTHi clones, C1 and C2, identified during this period. These clones correspond to multilocus sequence types ST164 and ST1714, respectively. We analyzed the genomic characteristics of C1 and C2 using whole genome sequencing data and compared them to a broader pangenome of Results: Both C1 and C2 isolates were highly related within their clusters, with C1 showing a maximum of 132 SNPs and C2 showing 149 SNPs within their respective core genomes. Genomic analysis revealed significant deletions in known virulence genes, surprisingly suggesting possible attenuation of virulence. No unique accessory genes were identified that distinguished C1 and C2 from other Conclusions: Our study suggests that while C1 and C2 clones possess some genetic markers potentially linked to systemic infections, there are no definitive unique genetic factors that distinguish these clones as more virulent than other
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.