ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Genomic Characterization of Carbapenem-Resistant
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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.
- Comparative genomic insights into carbapenem-resistant versus susceptibleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Recent Advances and Future Perspectives in the Detection of Carbapenem-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the genomic resistance profile of carbapenem-resistant Methods: Between 2012 and 2015, a total of 24 Results: Resistance rates to β-lactams ranged from 58.33% to 66.67%, while 95.83% of isolates remained susceptible to polymyxin. The representative CRAB strain I2 (sequence type 191) harbored three carbapenemase genes and 13 ade efflux pump genes, with 40 resistance genes identified (68.75% efflux-mediated). Genomic island GI16 (carrying transposase ISAba1) suggested horizontal gene transfer driving resistance dissemination. A total of 99 virulence genes and disinfectant resistance genes were detected. Biofilm formation capacity was moderate. Genomic analysis of strain I2 revealed a comprehensive resistance profile and potential mechanisms underlying environmental persistence and transmission. Conclusion: The ICU environment constitutes an important reservoir for CRAB. The strain I2 harbored key resistance determinants, including efflux pump, and mobile genetic elements, which correlated with its carbapenem-resistant phenotype. Additionally, this strain harbors biofilm-associated genes and disinfectant efflux pump genes, and exhibits moderate biofilm-forming capacity, indicating strong environmental adaptability. The genomic characteristics of strain I2 provide a molecular basis for implementing targeted CRAB infection control strategies in high-risk healthcare settings.
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.