Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41142573›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Comparative genomics of Shiga toxin-producing

Víctor Martínez, José T Cartajena, Estefanía Méndez, Jessica Dörner, Diego Méndez, Gabriel Arriagada, Jorge Toledo, Richard Arancibia, Nicolás Pizarro, Daniela Castro and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. AnMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

16 authors.

Víctor MartínezDepartamento de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
José T CartajenaDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Estefanía MéndezLife Sciences Faculty, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile.
Jessica DörnerDepartamento de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Diego MéndezDepartamento de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Gabriel ArriagadaInstituto de Ciencias Agroalimentarias, Animales y Ambientales, Universidad de O'Higgins, San Fernando, Chile.
Jorge ToledoRed de Equipamiento Científico Avanzado, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Richard ArancibiaDepartamento de Ciencias Clínicas, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Nicolás PizarroInstituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Osorno, Chile.
Daniela CastroEscuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Católica del Maule, Curicó, Chile.
Daniela LunaDepartamento de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Romina RamosEscuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile.
Joaquín JorqueraEscuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile.
Beatriz EscobarDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Indira T KudvaFood Safety and Enteric Pathogens Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Ames, IA, United States.
Nicolás GalarceDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Shiga toxin-producing Methods: A total of 948 fecal samples from Chilean cattle were screened, yielding 71 confirmed STEC isolates, which were analyzed alongside 546 publicly available genomes to compare host-specific adhesion patterns. The adhesiome was examined based on gene presence/absence patterns, followed by a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and variant effect analysis to identify host-specific adhesion genes and their functional implications. Results: Adhesin gene analysis revealed distinct adhesion strategies between hosts. Several genes, including Discussion: Our findings provide new insights into STEC host adaptation and highlight potential targets to reduce zoonotic transmission and improve pre-harvest food safety strategies. Future research should focus on functional validation of host-specific adhesin variants and their potential as preventive strategies.

Indexed as

adhesiomecattleE. coliGWAShumanShigaSTECWGS

Identifiers

PMID41142573
PMCPMC12547504

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.