ArticleClinical chemistry2026
A Culture-Free Lipidomics-Based Screening Test for Uropathogens.
Article in Clinical chemistry, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA rapid culture-free method is needed to improve diagnostic efficiency and guide timely antimicrobial therapy for urinary tract infections (UTIs). Previously, we utilized the lipidomics-based fast lipid analysis technique (FLAT) to screen for uropathogens by identifying distinctive microbial membrane lipid profiles, specifically lipid A in gram-negative and cardiolipin in gram-positive bacteria. This culture-free assay demonstrated high sensitivity (94%) in detecting gram-negative bacteria but poor sensitivity (51%) for gram-positive bacteria.
methodsIn this study, we pretreated urine pellets with lysozyme prior to FLAT analysis to break down the peptidoglycan layer bacteria, thereby promoting the efficient release of cardiolipin. The limit of detection (LOD) for 4 gram-positive bacteria and Escherichia coli was evaluated using contrived samples with known CFU/mL values and varying concentrations of lysozyme. Subsequently, we validated the optimized method in a clinical cohort of 76 urine samples known to contain gram-positive bacteria as confirmed by urine culture.
resultsOptimal sensitivity was achieved by treating 1 mL of urine pellets with 100 µg lysozyme and incubating for 60 minutes, resulting in a 100-fold increase in cardiolipin LOD and a 95% detection rate for gram-positive bacteria. Signal-to-noise ratio for lipid A was also improved. Polymicrobial urine cultures with gram-negative and gram-positive species were identified in 2 patients.
conclusionsThe lysozyme-enhanced FLAT assay enables rapid and culture-free detection of both gram-negative and gram-positive uropathogens directly from urine. The unified workflow decreases the analytical turnaround time by at least 90% making it well-suited for high-throughput clinical laboratories.
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.