The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Phenotypic and Genotypic Techniques for Identification of Unusual Aerobic Pathogenic Gram-Negative Bacilli
Open accessAbstract
Rapid and accurate identification of bacterial pathogens is a fundamental goal of clinical microbiology, but one that is difficult or impossible for many slow-growing and fastidious organisms. We used identification systems based on cellular fatty acid profiles (Sherlock; MIDI, Inc., Newark, Del.), carbon source utilization (Microlog; Biolog, Inc., Hayward, Calif.), and 16S rRNA gene sequence (MicroSeq; Perkin-Elmer Applied Biosystems Division, Foster City, Calif.) to evaluate 72 unusual aerobic gram-negative bacilli isolated from clinical specimens at the Mayo Clinic. Compared to lengthy conventional methods, Sherlock, Microlog, and MicroSeq were able to identify 56 of 72 (77.8%), 63 of 72 (87.5%), and 70 of 72 (97.2%) isolates to the genus level ( P = 0.002) and 44 to 65 (67.7%), 55 of 65 (84.6%), and 58 of 65 (89.2%) isolates to the species level ( P = 0.005), respectively. Four Acinetobacter and three Bordetella isolates which could not be identified to the species level by conventional methods were identified by MicroSeq. In comparison to the full 16S rDNA sequences, the first 527 bp provided identical genus information for all 72 isolates and identical species information for 67 (93.1%) isolates. These data show that MicroSeq provides rapid, unambiguous identification of clinical bacterial isolates. The improved turnaround time provided by genotypic identification systems may translate into improved clinical outcomes.
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
Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya.
Woese, C. R., Kandler, O., & Wheelis, M. L. (1990) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576 · Cited by 6,128
The Agent of Bacillary Angiomatosis: An Approach to the Identification of Uncultured Pathogens
Relman, D. A., Loutit, J. S., Schmidt, T. M., Falkow, S., & Tompkins, L. S. (1990) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199012063232301 · Cited by 901
Cited by
Mellmann, A., Cloud, J., Maier, T., Keckevoet, U., Ramminger, I., Iwen, P., Dunn, J., Hall, G., Wilson, D., LaSala, P., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.00157-08 · Cited by 435
Population Genetics of the Nomenspecies Enterobacter cloacae
Hoffmann, H., & Roggenkamp, A. (2003) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.69.9.5306-5318.2003 · Cited by 306
Song, Y., Liu, C., Bolaňos, M., Lee, J., McTeague, M., & Finegold, S. M. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.43.4.1531-1537.2005 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Tang, Y.-W., Ellis, N. M., Hopkins, M. K., Smith, D. H., Dodge, D. E., & Persing, D. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3674-3679
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2111789213
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.20
- 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: Comparison of Phenotypic and Genotypic Techniques for Identification of Unusual Aerobic Pathogenic Gram-Negative Bacilli. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.36.12.3674-3679.1998
- The paper
- Tang, Y.-W., Ellis, N. M., Hopkins, M. K., Smith, D. H., Dodge, D. E., & Persing, D. H. (1998). Comparison of Phenotypic and Genotypic Techniques for Identification of Unusual Aerobic Pathogenic Gram-Negative Bacilli. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.12.3674-3679.1998
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.