The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revisiting the STEC Testing Approach: Using espK and espV to Make Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) Detection More Reliable in Beef
Open accessAbstract
Current methods for screening Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) O157 and non-O157 in beef enrichments typically rely on the molecular detection of stx, eae, and serogroup-specific wzx or wzy gene fragments. As these genetic markers can also be found in some non-EHEC strains, a number of "false positive" results are obtained. Here, we explore the suitability of five novel molecular markers, espK, espV, ureD, Z2098, and CRISPRO26:H11 as candidates for a more accurate screening of EHEC strains of greater clinical significance in industrialized countries. Of the 1739 beef enrichments tested, 180 were positive for both stx and eae genes. Ninety (50%) of these tested negative for espK, espV, ureD, and Z2098, but 12 out of these negative samples were positive for the CRISPRO26:H11 gene marker specific for a newly emerging virulent EHEC O26:H11 French clone. We show that screening for stx, eae, espK, and espV, in association with the CRISPRO26:H11 marker is a better approach to narrow down the EHEC screening step in beef enrichments. The number of potentially positive samples was reduced by 48.88% by means of this alternative strategy compared to the European and American reference methods, thus substantially improving the discriminatory power of EHEC screening systems. This approach is in line with the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) opinion on pathogenic STEC published in 2013.
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
Epidemic Profile of Shiga-Toxin–Producing Escherichia coli O104:H4 Outbreak in Germany
Frank, C., Werber, D., Cramer, J. P., Askar, M., Faber, M., an der Heiden, M., Bernard, H., Fruth, A., Prager, R., Spode, A., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1106483 · Cited by 1,139
Authority, E. F. S., & European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2014) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3547 · Cited by 481
Cited by
Effects of anthocyanins on the prevention and treatment of cancer
Lin, B., Gong, C., Song, H., & Cui, Y. (2017) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.13627 · Cited by 435
Krumbeck, J. A., Rasmussen, H. E., Hutkins, R. W., Clarke, J., Shawron, K., Keshavarzian, A., & Walter, J. (2018) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0494-4 · Cited by 342
Understanding microbial community dynamics to improve optimal microbiome selection
Wright, R. J., Gibson, M. I., & Christie-Oleza, J. A. (2019) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-019-0702-x · Cited by 341
Brooks, B., Olm, M. R., Firek, B. A., Baker, R., Thomas, B. C., Morowitz, M. J., & Banfield, J. F. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02018-w · Cited by 226
Varjani, S., & Upasani, V. N. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.070 · Cited by 166
Metadata
- Authors
- Delannoy, S., Chaves, B. D., Ison, S. A., Webb, H. E., Beutin, L., Delaval, J., Billet, I., & Fach, P.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Microbiology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2016-01-22
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1664-302X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2301207364
- Cited by
- 1,185
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 166.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Revisiting the STEC Testing Approach: Using espK and espV to Make Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) Detection More Reliable in Beef. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00001
- The paper
- Delannoy, S., Chaves, B. D., Ison, S. A., Webb, H. E., Beutin, L., Delaval, J., Billet, I., & Fach, P. (2016). Revisiting the STEC Testing Approach: Using espK and espV to Make Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) Detection More Reliable in Beef. Frontiers in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00001
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.