ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1995
Comparison of four DNA-based methods for strain delineation of Candida lusitaniae.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Case Study in Saudi Arabia: Biodiversity of Maize Seed-Borne Pathogenic Fungi in Relation to Biochemical, Physiological, and Molecular Characteristics.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Usefulness of McRAPD for typing and importance of biofilm production in a case of nosocomial ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection caused by Candida lusitaniae.Folia microbiologica · 2011Article
- Identification of Candida spp. by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis and differentiation between Candida albicans and Candida dubliniensis by direct PCR methods.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Article
- Change in colony morphology of Candida lusitaniae in association with development of amphotericin B resistance.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2002Article
- Alternative identification test relying upon sexual reproductive abilities of Candida lusitaniae strains isolated from hospitalized patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2001Article
- Retrospective identification and characterization of Candida dubliniensis isolates among Candida albicans clinical laboratory isolates from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected and non-HIV-infected individuals.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2000Article
- The ins and outs of DNA fingerprinting the infectious fungi.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2000Review
- Coaggregation of Candida dubliniensis with Fusobacterium nucleatum.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1999Article
- Identification of Candida dubliniensis in a prospective study of patients in the United States.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1999Article
- The evolutionary biology and population genetics underlying fungal strain typing.Clinical microbiology reviews · 1999Review
- Identification of Candida species by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA fingerprinting of colony lysates.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1997Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.