↓ Skip to main content

COMPARISON OF 16S rRNA-PCR-RFLP, LipL32-PCR AND OmpL1-PCR METHODS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF LEPTOSPIROSIS

Overview of attention for article published in Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
COMPARISON OF 16S rRNA-PCR-RFLP, LipL32-PCR AND OmpL1-PCR METHODS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF LEPTOSPIROSIS
Published in
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, September 2016
DOI 10.1590/s1678-9946201658064
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tülin GÜVEN GÖKMEN, Ayben SOYAL, Yıldız KALAYCI, Cansu ÖNLEN, Fatih KÖKSAL

Abstract

Leptospirosis is still one of the most important health problems in developing countries located in humid tropical and subtropical regions. Human infections are generally caused by exposure to water, soil or food contaminated with the urine of infected wild and domestic animals such as rodents and dogs. The clinical course of leptospirosis is variable and may be difficult to distinguish from many other infectious diseases. The dark-field microscopy (DFM), serology and nucleic acid amplification techniques are used to diagnose leptospirosis, however, a distinctive standard reference method is still lacking. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to determine the presence of Leptospira spp., to differentiate the pathogenic L. interrogans and the non-pathogenic L. biflexa, and also to determine the sensitivity and specificity values of molecular methods as an alternative to conventional ones. A total of 133 serum samples, from 47 humans and 86 cattle were evaluated by two conventional tests: the Microagglutination Test (MAT) and the DFM, as well as three molecular methods, the 16S rRNA-PCR followed by Restriction Fragment Lenght Polymorphism (RFLP) of the amplification products 16S rRNA-PCR-RFLP, LipL32-PCR and OmpL1-PCR. In this study, for L. interrogans, the specificity and sensitivity rates of the 16S rRNA-PCR and the LipL32-PCR were considered similar (100% versus 98.25% and 100% versus 98.68%, respectively). The OmpL1-PCR was able to classify L. interrogans into two intergroups, but this PCR was less sensitive (87.01%) than the other two PCR methods. The 16S rRNA-PCR-RFLP could detect L. biflexa DNA, but LipL32-PCR and OmpL1-PCR could not. The 16S rRNA-PCR-RFLP provided an early and accurate diagnosis and was able to distinguish pathogenic and non-pathogenic Leptospira species, hence it may be used as an alternative method to the conventional gold standard techniques for the rapid disgnosis of leptospirosis.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 129 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Researcher 10 8%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 39 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 19 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 40 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 October 2016.
All research outputs
#23,154,082
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#650
of 791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,793
of 329,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 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 791 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 329,993 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.