The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospective Whole-Genome Sequencing Enhances National Surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes
Open accessAbstract
Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has emerged as a powerful tool for comparing bacterial isolates in outbreak detection and investigation. Here we demonstrate that WGS performed prospectively for national epidemiologic surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes has the capacity to be superior to our current approaches using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), multilocus sequence typing (MLST), multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA), binary typing, and serotyping. Initially 423 L. monocytogenes isolates underwent WGS, and comparisons uncovered a diverse genetic population structure derived from three distinct lineages. MLST, binary typing, and serotyping results inferred in silico from the WGS data were highly concordant (>99%) with laboratory typing performed in parallel. However, WGS was able to identify distinct nested clusters within groups of isolates that were otherwise indistinguishable using our current typing methods. Routine WGS was then used for prospective epidemiologic surveillance on a further 97 L. monocytogenes isolates over a 12-month period, which provided a greater level of discrimination than that of conventional typing for inferring linkage to point source outbreaks. A risk-based alert system based on WGS similarity was used to inform epidemiologists required to act on the data. Our experience shows that WGS can be adopted for prospective L. monocytogenes surveillance and investigated for other pathogens relevant to public health.
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
FastTree 2 – Approximately Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S., & Arkin, A. P. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 · Cited by 14,894
Cited by
Whole genome-based population biology and epidemiological surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes
Moura, A., Criscuolo, A., Pouseele, H., Maury, M. M., Leclercq, A., Tarr, C., Björkman, J. T., Dallman, T., Reimer, A., Enouf, V., et al. (2016) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.185 · Cited by 668
Metadata
- Authors
- Kwong, J. C., Mercoulia, K., Tomita, T., Easton, M., Li, H. Y., Bulach, D. M., Stinear, T. P., Seemann, T., & Howden, B. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 333-342
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2178074935
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.12
- 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: Prospective Whole-Genome Sequencing Enhances National Surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.02344-15
- The paper
- Kwong, J. C., Mercoulia, K., Tomita, T., Easton, M., Li, H. Y., Bulach, D. M., Stinear, T. P., Seemann, T., & Howden, B. P. (2016). Prospective Whole-Genome Sequencing Enhances National Surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02344-15
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.