The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Molecular Analysis of Community- or Hospital-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Open accessAbstract
Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) is a growing public health concern that has been associated with pediatric fatalities. It is hypothesized that the evolution of CA-MRSA is a recent event due to the acquisition of mec DNA by previously methicillin-susceptible strains that circulated in the community. This study investigated the genetic relatedness between CA-MRSA, hospital-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA), and nonmenstrual toxic shock syndrome (nmTSS) isolates. Thirty-one of 32 CA-MRSA isolates were highly related as determined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and spa typing yet were distinguishable from 32 HA-MRSA strains. The 31 related CA-MRSA isolates produced either staphylococcal enterotoxin B ( n = 5) or C ( n = 26), and none made TSS toxin 1. All CA-MRSA isolates tested contained a type IV staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCC mec ) element. In comparison, none of the HA-MRSA isolates ( n = 32) expressed the three superantigens. Antibiotic susceptibility patterns were different between the CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA isolates; CA-MRSA was typically resistant only to β-lactam antibiotics. Six of twenty-one nmTSS isolates were indistinguishable or highly related to the CA-MRSA isolates. MnCop, an nmTSS isolate obtained in Alabama in 1986, was highly related to the CA-MRSA isolates except that it did not contain an SCC mec element. These data suggest that CA-MRSA strains may represent a new acquisition of SCC mec DNA in a previously susceptible genetic background that was capable of causing nmTSS. CA-MRSA poses a serious health risk not only because it is resistant to the antibiotics of choice for community-acquired staphylococcal infections but also because of its ability to cause nmTSS via superantigen production.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Oliveira, D. C., Tomasz, A., & de Lencastre, H. (2002) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(02)00227-x · Cited by 494
Cited by
David, M. Z., & Daum, R. S. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00081-09 · Cited by 1,972
Naimi, T. S. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.290.22.2976 · Cited by 1,688
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Molecular Characterization, Evolution, and Epidemiology
Lakhundi, S., & Zhang, K. (2018) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00020-18 · Cited by 1,637
Antimicrobial resistance: the example of Staphylococcus aureus
Lowy, F. D. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci18535 · Cited by 1,445
Community-acquired meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an emerging threat
Zetola, N., Francis, J. S., Nuermberger, E. L., & Bishai, W. R. (2005) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(05)70112-2 · Cited by 791
Metadata
- Authors
- Fey, P. D., Saïd-Salim, B., Rupp, M. E., Hinrichs, S. H., Boxrud, D. J., Davis, C. C., Kreiswirth, B. N., & Schlievert, P. M.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 196-203
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W2154187341
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Comparative Molecular Analysis of Community- or Hospital-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.47.1.196-203.2003
- The paper
- Fey, P. D., Saïd-Salim, B., Rupp, M. E., Hinrichs, S. H., Boxrud, D. J., Davis, C. C., Kreiswirth, B. N., & Schlievert, P. M. (2003). Comparative Molecular Analysis of Community- or Hospital-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.47.1.196-203.2003
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.