| Title |
Comparative Analysis of Subtyping Methods against a Whole-Genome-Sequencing Standard for Salmonella enterica Serotype Enteritidis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1128/jcm.02332-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiangyu Deng, Nikki Shariat, Elizabeth M. Driebe, Chandler C. Roe, Beth Tolar, Eija Trees, Paul Keim, Wei Zhang, Edward G. Dudley, Patricia I. Fields, David M. Engelthaler |
| Abstract |
A retrospective investigation was performed to evaluate whole genome sequencing as a benchmark for comparing molecular subtyping methods for Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis (SE) and survey the population structure of commonly encountered SE outbreak isolates in the United States. A total of 52 SE isolates representing 16 major outbreaks and three sporadic cases between 2001 and 2012 were sequenced and subjected to subtyping by four different methods: 1) whole genome single nucleotide polymorphism typing (WGST), 2) multiple loci VNTR (variable-number tandem repeat) analysis (MLVA), 3) clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats combined with multi-virulence-locus sequence typing (CRISPR-MVLST) and 4) pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). WGST resolved all outbreak clusters and provided useful robust phylogenetic inference with high epidemiological correlation. While both MLVA and CRISPR-MVLST yielded higher discriminatory power than PFGE, MLVA outperformed in delineating outbreak clusters whereas CRISPR-MVLST showed the potential to trace major lineages and ecological origins of SE. Our results suggested that whole genome sequencing makes a viable platform for the evaluation and benchmarking molecular subtyping methods. |
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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 22% |
| Researcher | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 42 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 22% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 31 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 February 2023.
All research outputs
#5,338,695
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
#3,248
of 14,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,639
of 276,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
#22
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 276,330 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 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.