Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7650168›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1995

Comparison of four DNA-based methods for strain delineation of Candida lusitaniae.

D King, J Rhine-Chalberg, M A Pfaller, S A Moser, W G Merz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D KingDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland 21287-7093, USA.
J Rhine-Chalberg
M A Pfaller
S A Moser
W G Merz
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Four methods for the accurate delineation of epidemiologically related and unrelated strains of Candida lusitaniae were compared. Three pulsed-field electrophoretic methods, including two contour-clamped homogeneous field gel electrophoresis methods (EKP-1 and EKP-2) yielding electrophoretic karyotype patterns of intact chromosomal DNA and a method in which the chromosomal DNA was macrodigested with the endonuclease SfiI prior to pulsed-field electrophoresis (MDP), and a random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assay were evaluated. A selected panel of 21 well-characterized isolated representing 13 strains of C. lusitaniae, including 7 epidemiologically related isolates of one strain (group I-A), 3 epidemiologically related isolates of another strain (group I-B), and 11 epidemiologically unrelated isolates (group II), were tested. All isolates were coded and tested in a blinded manner. All seven group I-A isolates were confirmed to be a single strain by the EKP-1 and MDP methods, and the three group I-B isolates were shown to be a single strain by the EKP-1, EKP-2, MDP, and RAPD methods. Subtle differences were noted with two of the group I-A isolates by the EKP-2 method, whereas three of these isolates were different by the RAPD method. Each group II isolate had distinct patterns by all four methods. These data support the fact that the three pulsed-field electrophoretic methods and the RAPD method can be used to delineate strains of C. lusitaniae. The EKP-1, EKP-2, and MDP gave results that correlated with the epidemiologic characteristics of the isolates tested in the study, whereas the RAPD method was perhaps too sensitive in detecting DNA changes for epidemiologic studies.

Indexed as

CandidaCandidiasisDNA, FungalElectrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-FieldEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansMycologyOpportunistic InfectionsPolymorphism, GeneticSensitivity and SpecificitySpecies SpecificityDNA, Fungal

Identifiers

PMID7650168
PMCPMC228197
OpenAlexW1947501859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.