| Title |
Comparison of DNA Microarray, Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) and Real-Time PCR with DNA Sequencing for Identification of Fusarium spp. Obtained from Patients with Hematologic Malignancies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Mycopathologia, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11046-017-0129-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcela de Souza, Tetsuhiro Matsuzawa, Kanae Sakai, Yasunori Muraosa, Luzia Lyra, Ariane Fidelis Busso-Lopes, Anna Sara Shafferman Levin, Angélica Zaninelli Schreiber, Yuzuru Mikami, Tohoru Gonoi, Katsuhiko Kamei, Maria Luiza Moretti, Plínio Trabasso |
| Abstract |
The performance of three molecular biology techniques, i.e., DNA microarray, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), and real-time PCR were compared with DNA sequencing for properly identification of 20 isolates of Fusarium spp. obtained from blood stream as etiologic agent of invasive infections in patients with hematologic malignancies. DNA microarray, LAMP and real-time PCR identified 16 (80%) out of 20 samples as Fusarium solani species complex (FSSC) and four (20%) as Fusarium spp. The agreement among the techniques was 100%. LAMP exhibited 100% specificity, while DNA microarray, LAMP and real-time PCR showed 100% sensitivity. The three techniques had 100% agreement with DNA sequencing. Sixteen isolates were identified as FSSC by sequencing, being five Fusarium keratoplasticum, nine Fusarium petroliphilum and two Fusarium solani. On the other hand, sequencing identified four isolates as Fusarium non-solani species complex (FNSSC), being three isolates as Fusarium napiforme and one isolate as Fusarium oxysporum. Finally, LAMP proved to be faster and more accessible than DNA microarray and real-time PCR, since it does not require a thermocycler. Therefore, LAMP signalizes as emerging and promising methodology to be used in routine identification of Fusarium spp. among cases of invasive fungal infections. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,411,380
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Mycopathologia
#885
of 1,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,614
of 309,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mycopathologia
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,079 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.