ArticleWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2025
Simple detection and differentiation of Aeromonas caviae infection and contamination with specific monoclonal antibodies by dot blotting.
Article in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Aeromonas spp. are well-known pathogenic bacteria that cause severe infectious diseases in humans and animals through ingestion or contact with contaminated food and water; thus, detecting contamination in suspected samples is essential. This study developed a new detection tool by creating three strong monoclonal antibody (mAb) clones-AC-19, AC-4, and AC-16-by injecting mice with Aeromonas caviae antigens. The dot blot test using antigens from different gram-negative bacteria showed that AC-19 could detect all 88 samples of five Aeromonas species (A. caviae, Aeromonas hydrophila, Aeromonas sobria, Aeromonas veronii, and Aeromonas jandaei), but it also reacted with Plesiomonas shigelloides. Importantly, AC-4 and AC-16 each demonstrated 100% specificity to A. caviae and exhibited 100% sensitivity (31/31 isolates) and 64.52% sensitivity (20/31 isolates), respectively. These results suggest that AC-4 is the most promising mAb for A. caviae detection. Testing the limit of detection by dot blotting against A. caviae antigen exhibited the following. AC-19 at 3 × 10
Indexed as
Identifiers
40788591What 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.