↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Nucleic Acid Isothermal Amplification Methods for Human Clinical Microbial Infection Detection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Evaluation of Nucleic Acid Isothermal Amplification Methods for Human Clinical Microbial Infection Detection
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02211
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brett E. Etchebarne, Zenggang Li, Robert D. Stedtfeld, Michael C. Nicholas, Maggie R. Williams, Timothy A. Johnson, Tiffany M. Stedtfeld, Tanja Kostic, Walid T. Khalife, James M. Tiedje, Syed A. Hashsham, Mary J. Hughes

Abstract

Battling infection is a major healthcare objective. Untreated infections can rapidly evolve toward the condition of sepsis in which the body begins to fail and resuscitation becomes critical and tenuous. Identification of infection followed by rapid antimicrobial treatment are primary goals of medical care, but precise identification of offending organisms by current methods is slow and broad spectrum empirical therapy is employed to cover most potential pathogens. Current methods for identification of bacterial pathogens in a clinical setting typically require days of time, or a 4- to 8-h growth phase followed by DNA extraction, purification and PCR-based amplification. We demonstrate rapid (70-120 min) genetic diagnostics methods utilizing loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) to test for 15 common infection pathogen targets, called the Infection Diagnosis Panel (In-Dx). The method utilizes filtration to rapidly concentrate bacteria in sample matrices with lower bacterial loads and direct LAMP amplification without DNA purification from clinical blood, urine, wound, sputum and stool samples. The In-Dx panel was tested using two methods of detection: (1) real-time thermocycler fluorescent detection of LAMP amplification and (2) visual discrimination of color change in the presence of Eriochrome Black T (EBT) dye following amplification. In total, 239 duplicate samples were collected (31 blood, 122 urine, 73 mucocutaneous wound/swab, 11 sputum and two stool) from 229 prospectively enrolled hospital patients with suspected clinical infection and analyzed both at the hospital and by In-Dx. Sensitivity (Se) of the In-Dx panel targets pathogens from urine samples by In-Dx was 91.1% and specificity (Sp) was 97.3%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 53.7% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.7% as compared to clinical microbial detection methods. Sensitivity of detection of the In-Dx panel from mucocutaneous swab samples was 65.5% with a Sp of 99.3%, and a PPV of 84% and NPV of 98% as compared to clinical microbial detection methods. Results indicate the LAMP-based In-Dx panel allows rapid and precise diagnosis of clinical infections by targeted pathogens across multiple culture types for point-of-care utilization.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Chemical Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 26 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 September 2021.
All research outputs
#6,355,463
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#6,293
of 25,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,611
of 439,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#210
of 512 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,134 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 74% 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 439,146 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 512 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 58% of its contemporaries.