Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting antimicrobial susceptibilities for Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates using whole genomic sequence data

Open access
Stoesser, N., Batty, E. M., Eyre, D. W., Morgan, M., Wyllie, D. H., Del Ojo Elias, C., Johnson, J. R., Walker, A. S., Peto, T. E. A., Crook, D. W.·2013·Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Whole-genome sequencing potentially represents a single, rapid and cost-effective approach to defining resistance mechanisms and predicting phenotype, and strain type, for both clinical and epidemiological purposes. This retrospective study aimed to determine the efficacy of whole genome-based antimicrobial resistance prediction in clinical isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. METHODS: Seventy-four E. coli and 69 K. pneumoniae bacteraemia isolates from Oxfordshire, UK, were sequenced (Illumina HiSeq 2000). Resistance phenotypes were predicted from genomic sequences using BLASTn-based comparisons of de novo-assembled contigs with a study database of >100 known resistance-associated loci, including plasmid-associated and chromosomal genes. Predictions were made for seven commonly used antimicrobials: amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and meropenem. Comparisons were made with phenotypic results obtained in duplicate by broth dilution (BD Phoenix). Discrepancies, either between duplicate BD Phoenix results or between genotype and phenotype, were resolved with gradient diffusion analyses. RESULTS: A wide variety of antimicrobial resistance genes were identified, including blaCTX-M, blaLEN, blaOKP, blaOXA, blaSHV, blaTEM, aac(3')-Ia, aac-(3')-IId, aac-(3')-IIe, aac(6')-Ib-cr, aadA1a, aadA4, aadA5, aadA16, aph(6')-Id, aph(3')-Ia, qnrB and qnrS, as well as resistance-associated mutations in chromosomal gyrA and parC genes. The sensitivity of genome-based resistance prediction across all antibiotics for both species was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98) and the specificity was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98). Very major and major error rates were 1.2% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our method was as sensitive and specific as routinely deployed phenotypic methods. Validation against larger datasets and formal assessments of cost and turnaround time in a routine laboratory setting are warranted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jac/dkt180

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Stoesser, N., Batty, E. M., Eyre, D. W., Morgan, M., Wyllie, D. H., Del Ojo Elias, C., Johnson, J. R., Walker, A. S., Peto, T. E. A., & Crook, D. W.
Venue
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Published
2013-05-30
Volume
68
Issue
10
Pages
2234-2244
ISSN
  • 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2091
OpenAlex
W2137413050
Cited by
308
References
1
FWCI
9.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting antimicrobial susceptibilities for Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates using whole genomic sequence data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/dkt180
The paper
Stoesser, N., Batty, E. M., Eyre, D. W., Morgan, M., Wyllie, D. H., Del Ojo Elias, C., Johnson, J. R., Walker, A. S., Peto, T. E. A., & Crook, D. W. (2013). Predicting antimicrobial susceptibilities for Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates using whole genomic sequence data. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkt180

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.