Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

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 access
Tang, Yi-Wei, Ellis, Nicole M., Hopkins, Marlene K., Smith, Douglas H., Dodge, Deborah E., Persing, David H.·1998·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.36.12.3674-3679.1998

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 284

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
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.