Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 830

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Multicenter Evaluation of a Sequence-Based Protocol for Subtyping Shiga Toxins and Standardizing Stx Nomenclature

Open access
Scheutz, Flemming, Teel, Louise D., Beutin, Lothar, Piérard, Denis, Buvens, Glenn, Karch, Helge, Mellmann, Alexander, Caprioli, Alfredo, Tozzoli, Rosangela, Morabito, Stefano, Strockbine, Nancy A., Melton-Celsa, Angela R., Sanchez, Maria, Persson, Søren, O'Brien, Alison D.·2012·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

When Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) strains emerged as agents of human disease, two types of toxin were identified: Shiga toxin type 1 (Stx1) (almost identical to Shiga toxin produced by Shigella dysenteriae type 1) and the immunologically distinct type 2 (Stx2). Subsequently, numerous STEC strains have been characterized that express toxins with variations in amino acid sequence, some of which confer unique biological properties. These variants were grouped within the Stx1 or Stx2 type and often assigned names to indicate that they were not identical in sequence or phenotype to the main Stx1 or Stx2 type. A lack of specificity or consistency in toxin nomenclature has led to much confusion in the characterization of STEC strains. Because serious outcomes of infection have been attributed to certain Stx subtypes and less so with others, we sought to better define the toxin subtypes within the main Stx1 and Stx2 types. We compared the levels of relatedness of 285 valid sequence variants of Stx1 and Stx2 and identified common sequences characteristic of each of three Stx/Stx1 and seven Stx2 subtypes. A novel, simple PCR subtyping method was developed, independently tested on a battery of 48 prototypic STEC strains, and improved at six clinical and research centers to test the reproducibility, sensitivity, and specificity of the PCR. Using a consistent schema for nomenclature of the Stx toxins and stx genes by phylogenetic sequence-based relatedness of the holotoxin proteins, we developed a typing approach that should obviate the need to bioassay each newly described toxin and that predicts important biological characteristics.

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 · 10.1128/jcm.00860-12

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.

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

Cited by

See all 830

Metadata

Authors
Scheutz, F., Teel, L. D., Beutin, L., Piérard, D., Buvens, G., Karch, H., Mellmann, A., Caprioli, A., Tozzoli, R., Morabito, S., Strockbine, N. A., Melton-Celsa, A. R., Sanchez, M., Persson, S., & O'Brien, A. D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2012-09
Volume
50
Issue
9
Pages
2951-2963
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2051567318
Cited by
830
References
0
FWCI
37.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Multicenter Evaluation of a Sequence-Based Protocol for Subtyping Shiga Toxins and Standardizing Stx Nomenclature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.00860-12
The paper
Scheutz, F., Teel, L. D., Beutin, L., Piérard, D., Buvens, G., Karch, H., Mellmann, A., Caprioli, A., Tozzoli, R., Morabito, S., Strockbine, N. A., Melton-Celsa, A. R., Sanchez, M., Persson, S., & O'Brien, A. D. (2012). Multicenter Evaluation of a Sequence-Based Protocol for Subtyping Shiga Toxins and Standardizing Stx Nomenclature. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00860-12

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.