↓ Skip to main content

Revisiting the STEC Testing Approach: Using espK and espV to Make Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) Detection More Reliable in Beef

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
178 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Revisiting the STEC Testing Approach: Using espK and espV to Make Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) Detection More Reliable in Beef
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine Delannoy, Byron D. Chaves, Sarah A. Ison, Hattie E. Webb, Lothar Beutin, José Delaval, Isabelle Billet, Patrick Fach

Abstract

Current methods for screening Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) O157 and non-O157 in beef enrichments typically rely on the molecular detection of stx, eae, and serogroup-specific wzx or wzy gene fragments. As these genetic markers can also be found in some non-EHEC strains, a number of "false positive" results are obtained. Here, we explore the suitability of five novel molecular markers, espK, espV, ureD, Z2098, and CRISPRO26:H11 as candidates for a more accurate screening of EHEC strains of greater clinical significance in industrialized countries. Of the 1739 beef enrichments tested, 180 were positive for both stx and eae genes. Ninety (50%) of these tested negative for espK, espV, ureD, and Z2098, but 12 out of these negative samples were positive for the CRISPRO26:H11 gene marker specific for a newly emerging virulent EHEC O26:H11 French clone. We show that screening for stx, eae, espK, and espV, in association with the CRISPRO26:H11 marker is a better approach to narrow down the EHEC screening step in beef enrichments. The number of potentially positive samples was reduced by 48.88% by means of this alternative strategy compared to the European and American reference methods, thus substantially improving the discriminatory power of EHEC screening systems. This approach is in line with the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) opinion on pathogenic STEC published in 2013.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Armenia 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,226,436
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#7,673
of 24,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,310
of 395,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#172
of 483 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 395,188 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 483 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.