Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Detection of the etiologic agent of human ehrlichiosis by polymerase chain reaction

Open access
Anderson, B E, Sumner, J W, Dawson, J E, Tzianabos, T, Greene, C R, Olson, J G, Fishbein, D B, Olsen-Rasmussen, M, Holloway, B P, George, E H·1992·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers derived from a variable region of the 16S rRNA gene sequence were used to amplify DNA specifically from Ehrlichia chaffeensis (the recently proposed name for the etiologic agent of human ehrlichiosis). The 389-bp product defined by the specific primers was not detected when DNA samples from any of the other recognized species of Ehrlichia were used as amplification templates. When the PCR was applied to five suitable blood specimens obtained from patients subsequently shown to be serologically positive for E. chaffeensis, all five were positive. The same technique was applied to a total of six control blood specimens, three from febrile patients who had no serologic evidence of infection with Ehrlichia or Rickettsia species and three from patients diagnosed with Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and all six were negative. A chemiluminescent, group-specific oligonucleotide probe was shown to hybridize only with the PCR products obtained upon amplification of the five blood specimens from patients serologically diagnosed as having human ehrlichiosis. The results indicate that PCR, coupled with a nonisotopic method of confirming the identity of the PCR product, is a highly specific and efficient method of detecting the agent of human ehrlichiosis in blood. The results also suggest that E. chaffeensis is the sole etiologic agent of human ehrlichiosis in the United States. The technique was also applied to four ticks that were positive by direct immunofluorescence for Ehrlichia species, and one tick was PCR positive, indicating that E. chaffeensis DNA can be detected in ticks harboring this organism, although the sensitivity may be low.

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.30.4.775-780.1992

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 262

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, B. E., Sumner, J. W., Dawson, J. E., Tzianabos, T., Greene, C. R., Olson, J. G., Fishbein, D. B., Olsen-Rasmussen, M., Holloway, B. P., & George, E. H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1992-04
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
775-780
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W1821214403
Cited by
262
References
0
FWCI
7.61
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: Detection of the etiologic agent of human ehrlichiosis by polymerase chain reaction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.30.4.775-780.1992
The paper
Anderson, B. E., Sumner, J. W., Dawson, J. E., Tzianabos, T., Greene, C. R., Olson, J. G., Fishbein, D. B., Olsen-Rasmussen, M., Holloway, B. P., & George, E. H. (1992). Detection of the etiologic agent of human ehrlichiosis by polymerase chain reaction. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.30.4.775-780.1992

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.