Hongxia Guan, Jingyun Zhang, Yong Xiao, Dan Sha, Xia Ling, Biao Kan
Abstract
Diarrhea can be caused by a variety of bacterial, viral and parasitic organisms. Laboratory diagnosis is essential in the pathogen-specific burden assessment. In the pathogen spectrum monitoring in the diarrheal surveillance, culture methods are commonly used for the bacterial pathogens' detection whereas nucleic acid based amplification, the non-cultural methods are used for the viral pathogens. Different methodology may cause the inaccurate pathogen spectrum for the bacterial pathogens because of their different culture abilities with the different media, and for the comparison of bacterial vs. viral pathogens. The application of nucleic acid-based methods in the detection of viral and bacterial pathogens will likely increase the number of confirmed positive diagnoses, and will be comparable since all pathogens will be detected based on the same nucleic acid extracts from the same sample. In this study, bacterial pathogens, including diarrheagenic Escherichia coli (DEC), Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. cholerae, were detected in 334 diarrheal samples by PCR-based methods using nucleic acid extracted from stool samples and associated enrichment cultures. A protocol was established to facilitate the consistent identification of bacterial pathogens in diarrheal patients. Five common enteric viruses were also detected by RT-PCR, including rotavirus, sapovirus, norovirus (I and II), human astrovirus, and enteric adenovirus. Higher positive rates were found for the bacterial pathogens, showing the lower proportion estimation if only using culture methods. This application will improve the quality of bacterial diarrheagenic pathogen survey, providing more accurate information pertaining to the pathogen spectrum associated with finding of food safety problems and disease burden evaluation.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,317,110
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,466
of 24,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,730
of 300,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#469
of 545 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 545 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
