↓ Skip to main content

Detection and differentiation of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in clinical samples through PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Detection and differentiation of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in clinical samples through PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1590/1414-431x20175997
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. López-López, M.C. Martínez-López, X.M. Boldo-León, Y. Hernández-Díaz, T.B. González-Castro, C.A. Tovilla-Zárate, J.P. Luna-Arias

Abstract

Amebiasis is one of the twenty major causes of disease in Mexico; however, the diagnosis is difficult due to limitations of conventional microscopy-based techniques. In this study, we analyzed stool samples using polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) to differentiate between Entamoeba histolytica (pathogenic) and E. dispar (non-pathogenic). The target for the PCR amplification was a small region (228 bp) of the adh112 gene selected to increase the sensitivity of the test. The study involved 62 stool samples that were collected from individuals with complaints of gastrointestinal discomfort. Of the 62 samples, 10 (16.1%) were positive for E. histolytica while 52 (83.9%) were negative. No sample was positive for E. dispar. These results were validated by nested PCR-RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) and suggest that PCR-DGGE is a promising tool to differentiate among Entamoeba infections, contributing to determine the specific treatment for patients infected with E. histolytica, and therefore, avoiding unnecessary treatment of patients infected with the non-pathogenic E. dispar.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,599,199
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#216
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,345
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#6
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 90% of its contemporaries.