Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 357

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identification of Toxin A-Negative, Toxin B-Positive Clostridium difficile by PCR

Open access
Kato, Haru, Kato, Naoki, Watanabe, Kunitomo, Iwai, Naoichi, Nakamura, Haruhi, Yamamoto, Toshinobu, Suzuki, Kanzo, Kim, Shin-Moo, Chong, Yunsop, Wasito, Eddy Bagus·1998·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Toxigenic strains of Clostridium difficile have been reported to produce both toxins A and B nearly always, and nontoxigenic strains have been reported to produce neither of these toxins. Recent studies indicate that it is not always true. We established a PCR assay to differentiate toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive (toxin A−, toxin B+) strains from both toxin-positive (toxin A+, toxin B+) strains and both toxin-negative (toxin A−, toxin B−) strains as an alternative to cell culture assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). By using the PCR primer set NK11 and NK9 derived from the repeating sequences of the toxin A gene, a shorter segment (ca. 700 bp) was amplified from toxin A−, toxin B+ strains compared to the size of the segment amplified from toxin A+, toxin B+ strains (ca. 1,200 bp), and no product was amplified from toxin A−, toxin B− strains. We examined a total of 421 C. difficile isolates by PCR. Of these, 48 strains showed a shorter segment by the PCR, were negative by ELISAs for the detection of toxin A, and were positive by cell culture assay. Although the cytotoxin produced by the toxin A−, toxin B+ strains was neutralized by anti-toxin B serum, the appearance of the cytotoxic effects on Vero cell monolayers was distinguishable from that of toxin A+, toxin B+ strains. By immunoblotting, the 44 toxin A−, toxin B+ strains were typed to serogroup F and the remaining four strains were serogroup X. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis separated the 48 strains into 19 types. The PCR assay for the detection of the repeating sequences combined with PCR amplification of the nonrepeating sequences of either the toxin A or the toxin B gene is indicated to be useful for differentiating toxin A−, toxin B+ strains from toxin A+, toxin B+ and toxin A−, toxin B− strains and will contribute to elucidation of the precise role of toxin A−, toxin B+ strains in intestinal diseases.

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.36.8.2178-2182.1998

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

See all 357

Metadata

Authors
Kato, H., Kato, N., Watanabe, K., Iwai, N., Nakamura, H., Yamamoto, T., Suzuki, K., Kim, S.-M., Chong, Y., & Wasito, E. B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1998-08
Volume
36
Issue
8
Pages
2178-2182
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2133711875
Cited by
357
References
11
FWCI
7.41
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: Identification of Toxin A-Negative, Toxin B-Positive Clostridium difficile by PCR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.36.8.2178-2182.1998
The paper
Kato, H., Kato, N., Watanabe, K., Iwai, N., Nakamura, H., Yamamoto, T., Suzuki, K., Kim, S.-M., Chong, Y., & Wasito, E. B. (1998). Identification of Toxin A-Negative, Toxin B-Positive Clostridium difficile by PCR. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.8.2178-2182.1998

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.