| Title |
Accuracy of commercial kits and published primer pairs for the detection of periodontopathogens
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-016-1748-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elisabeth Santigli, Eva Leitner, Gernot Wimmer, Harald H. Kessler, Gebhard Feierl, Martin Grube, Katharina Eberhard, Barbara Klug |
| Abstract |
Despite the input of microbiome research, a group of 20 bacteria continues to be the focus of periodontal diagnostics and therapy. The aim of this study was to compare three commercial kits and laboratory-developed primer pairs for effectiveness in detecting such periodontopathogens. Fourteen bacterial mock communities, consisting of 16 randomly assembled bacterial strains, were used as reference standard for testing kits and primers. Extracted DNA from mock communities was analyzed by PCR in-house with specific primers and forwarded for analysis to the manufacturer's laboratory of each of the following kits: ParoCheck®Kit 20, micro-IDent®plus11, and Carpegen® Perio Diagnostik. The kits accurately detected Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia/Prevotella nigrescens, Parvimonas micra, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Campylobacter rectus/showae, Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus mutans, and Veillonella parvula. The in-house primers for F.nucleatum were highly specific to subtypes of the respective periopathogen. Other primers repeatedly detected oral pathogens not present in the mock communities, indicating reduced specificity. The commercial kits used in this study are reliable tools to support periodontal diagnostics. Whereas the detection profile of the kits is fixed at a general specificity level, the design of primers can be adjusted to differentiate between highly specific strains. In-house primers are more error-prone. Bacterial mock communities can be established as a reference standard for any similar testing. The tested kits render good results with selected bacterial species. Primers appear to be less useful for routine clinical diagnostics and of limited applicability in research. Basic information about the periodontopathogens identified in this study supports clinical decision-making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,993,454
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#141
of 1,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,258
of 300,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#5
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,410 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 300,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.