FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2413376451> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2413376451 endingPage "88" @default.
• W2413376451 startingPage "84" @default.
• W2413376451 abstract "original articleRapid detection of clarithromycin-resistant Helicobacter pylori in patients with dyspepsia by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) compared with the E-test Mojtaba Moosavian, Saeid Tajbakhsh, and Ali Reza Samarbaf-Zadeh Mojtaba Moosavian Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Center, Ahwaz Jundi Shapour University of Medical Sciences, Ahwaz, Iran Search for more papers by this author , Saeid Tajbakhsh Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bushehr, Universtiy of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran Search for more papers by this author , and Ali Reza Samarbaf-Zadeh Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Center, Ahwaz Jundi Shapour University of Medical Sciences, Ahwaz, Iran Search for more papers by this author Published Online:5 Apr 2007https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2007.84SectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AboutAbstractBACKGROUND: Clarithromycin is the antibiotic of choice for treatment of H. pylori-related dyspepsia, but unfortunately, resistance to clarithromycin is not rare. Detection of resistant strains takes 2 to 4 days by conventional methods. In this report, we applied the FISH technique for rapid detection of H. pylori in biopsies of dyspeptic patients.METHODS: Gastric biopsies from 50 patients suffering from dyspepsia were tested in this study. Part of each biopsy specimen was cultured and the remainder was fixed in liquid nitrogen. After mounting of frozen sections on microscopic slides, they were hybridized with oligonucleotide probes for detection of clarithromycin-resistant H. pylori. The slides were visualized under a fluorescent microscope. Susceptibility of cultured strains of H. pylori to clarithromycin was also determined by the E-test and the results were compared.RESULTS: Twenty-five of 50 biopsy specimens examined by FISH were positive for H. pylori. FISH showed that 17 strains (68%) were susceptible to clarithromycin and 6 strains (24%) were resistant. Bacteria isolated following culture of 2 biopsy specimens had a mixture of both clarithromycin-susceptible and resistant strains (8%). There was no discrepancy between the E-test and FISH technique for detection of resistant strains of H. pylori.CONCLUSION: FISH is a rapid technique for detection of H. pylori in clinical samples. Moreover, strains susceptible to clarithromycin can be detected quickly. Therefore, this method is suitable for determination of susceptibility of H. pylori to clarithromycin, especially when a quick decision is necessary for treating dyspeptic patients.IntroductionHelicobacter pylori has been recognized as one the most common chronic bacterial infections worldwide.1 Isolation of this bacterium from the majority of patients with peptic ulceration, chronic gastritis or gastric lymphoma has demonstrated a strong relationship between presence of H. pylori and development of ulcers or dyspepsia.2,3Recent reports have shown that reinfection with H. pylori is frequent, especially in children.4 Eradication of H. pylori in patients is possible by triple-therapy, which includes application of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) combined with two antibiotics (amoxicillin and clarithromycin or metronidazole and clarithromycin).5,6 A triple regimen including raberprazole, amoxicillin and gatifloxacin has also been recommended for treatment of H. pylori infection with a highlt effective eradication rate.7 However, the effect of antibiotics on patients living in different geographical area is slightly different. While for Japanese patients the combination of a PPI drug with amoxicillin and metronidazole is highly effective,8 a report shows that a combination of new antibiotics such as erythromycin and rifamycin derivatives with new polycyclic compounds has a powerful antibacterial activity on H. plyori.9 In addition, emergence of resistant strains of H. pylori is usual.10,11,12 The resistance rates of H. pylori strains to metronidazole increased from 35.2% to 78.5% between 1987–1988 and 1990–1996, respectively, in Saudi Arabia, while the resistance to tetracycline pr amoxicillin was rare in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.13,14 Detection of the resistant strains by conventional bacteriological methods takes at least 2 to 4 days and it may be lead to a delay in treatment, but FISH technique allows detection of clarithromycin-resistant strains of H. pylori within 2 to 4 hours.15 In this study we applied fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for determination of susceptibility or resistance of H. pylori to clarithromycin in the patients with dyspepsia, and compared the results to the E-test.METHODSGastric biopsy specimens taken from the antrum and corpus of 50 dyspeptic patients were immediately transferred to our microbiology lab in a suitable transport medium (Portagerm pylori, Biomerieux, Marcy, I’Etoile, France). Part of each biopsy was used for culture and the other part was fixed on a microscopic slide.Biopsies were fixed in Tissue-Tek compound (USA) and freezed in liquid nitrogen (−196°C).16 Each tissue piece was cut into 4-μm sections by cryomicrotom (Leica GM3050, Germany) and put into electrostatic superfrost plus slide15 (Menzel-Glaser, Germany). All probes used in our study have been previously described.15,17 A specific oligonucleotide [Hpy probe labelled with fluorescein (FLOUS) dye] targeted to a 16S rRNA (TIB, Molbiol, Berlin, Germani) was used to identify H. pylori. Also, probes of ClaR1, ClaR2, ClaR3 (labeled with the fluorochromes Cy3) and ClaWT (Metabion, Munich, Germany) were used for detection of 23S rRNA point mutations responsible for clarithromycin resistance. Control slides were prepared18,19,20,21 by using mutant (resistant) and wild (susceptible) strains of H. pylori. Also, Campylobacter jejuni was used as a negative control.Ten and 40 μL of hybridization solution containing a mixture of 5 probes (5 ng/μL) for each one) was added to each well of the control and fixed gastric biopsy slides, respectively. After hybridization at 46°C for 90 minutes in a humid chamber and washing by buffer,15,16 the slides were stained by DAPI (4′,6′-diamidino-2-phenylindol).16 Hybridized samples were mounted by DAKO solution, covered with coverslips and examined under a fluorescent microscope equipped with a standard filter set.The other part of the gastric biopsy specimen was homogenized and inoculated onto selective media of Colombia and Brucella agar.15,22,23 Isolated colonies suspected to be H. pylori were identified by Gram stain, rapid urease test, catalase, oxidase22,24,25 and susceptibility to cephalothin and nalidixic acid (30 μg disks).Mueller-Hinton agar containing 5% sheep’s blood and a clarithromycin tape (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) was used for the E-test.16,22 Twenty-four isolates of H. pylori recovered from 50 gastric biopsy specimens were examined for susceptibility to clarithromycin by the E-test. H. pylori isolates with a MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) ≥ 2 μg/mL were considered resistant.15,16,23 The results of H. pylori resistance in both the FISH and E-test methods were compared with each other.RESULTSResistant (mutant) strains of H. pylori ClaR1, ClaR2 and ClaR3 were hybridized with the Cy3-labled probes ClaR1, ClaR2 and ClaR3, respectively. Also, these strains were hybridized with Hpy probe labelled with FLUOS dye (green). Therefore, resistant strains were visualized red under a red filter of a fluorescent microscope and emitted yellow or orange signals under a mixed filter. However, susceptible H. pylori strains (wild type) hybridized with both probes Hpy (green) and ClaWT (without fluorescent dye) were observed only with green signals (under both green and mixed filters). Campylobacter jejuni (as negative control) was not hybridized with probes Hpy and ClaR, and so was observed blue (Figures 1 and 2).Figure 1 Clarithromycin-resistant H. pylori in gastric biopsy specimens. All four pictures show one similar microscopic field. (a) DAPI blue signal. (b) Green signal by Hpy-FLUOS hydridization. (c) Red signal by ClaR-Cy3 hydridization. (d) Yellow signal under mixed filter.Download FigureFigure 2 Resistant and sensitive strains of H. pylori to clarithromycin in gastric biopsy specimens. (a) DAPI blue color. (b) Green signals by hybridization of Hpy-FLUOS probe with both sensitive and/or resistant strains of H. pylori. (c) Red signal by hydridization of ClaR-Cy3 probe with only resistant H. pylori. (d) Yellow or orange signal is related to the sensitive strain.Download FigureThe examination of a total of 50 gastric biopsy specimens resulted in detection of 25 H. pylori strains, when the Hpy probe was used by the FISH technique. Also, FISH showed that 17 (68%) of these 25 strains were susceptible (hybridized with ClaWT probe), 6 (24%) were resistant (hybridized with ClaR1-3 probes) and 2 strains (8%) were a mixture of susceptible and resistant strains to clarithromycin. In this study, 5 isolates of H. pylori (21%) with an MIC more than 2 μg/mL were considered as resistant, while the MIC of 17 isolates (71%) was below 2 μg/mL by the E-test. The results obtained by both FISH and E-test were in full concordance with each other (Table 1). In this study, FISH technique was applied in 3 hours.Table 1 Susceptibility or resistance results for H. pylori to clarithromycin by fluorescent in sity hdribization (FISH) and E-test methods, using a mixture of 5 probes for hybridization.No. of isolatesFISH probesE-testHpyClaWTClaR (1–3)17 (68%)PositivePositiveNegativeSusceptible5 (20%)PositiveNegativePositiveResistance1 (4%)PositivePositiveNegativeNo growth2 (8%)PositivePositive/negativePositive/negativeSusceptible/resistant mixed infection*Total25 (100%)*Mixed Infection, including 2 susceptible and resistant isolates to clarithromycin shown by FISH and MIC values < 2μg/mL (susceptible) and ≥ 2 μg/mL (resistant) by the E-testDISCUSSIONDespite effective treatment regimens containing tetra-cycline, metronidazole, and amoxicillin against H. pylori, the most suitable regimen contains clarithromycin and amoxicillin.26 Relative resistance against gastric pH, suitable absorption when prescribed orally, the long half-life of the drug and low gastrointestinal side effects make clarithromycin a useful drug for eradication of H. pylori infections.11,27 However, H. pylori is gradually getting resistant to clarithromycin. It is estimated that currently up to 15% to 20% of H. pylori isolates, especially from children, are resistant to clarithromycin.11,28,29This study determined status of resistance or susceptibility of H. pylori to clarithromycin by the FISH method in a maximum of 3 hours, which it is very rapid compared with traditional methods (48–96 hours). Furthermore, by using 5 probes (Hpy, ClaR1-3 and ClaWT) the FISH technique could detect H. pylori and 23S rRNA point mutations within the peptidyl-transferase region simultaneously. These mutations [adenine (A) at positions 2143 and 2144 replaced by guanine (G-A2143G, A2144G) or cytosine(C-A2143C] are known as causative agents of H. pylori resistance to clarithromycin in gastric biopsy specimens.15,16The data obtained by the FISH technique in this study was in coordination with data obtained from the E-test (Table 1) because all susceptible or resistant isolates known by the E-test were the same as those seen directly in clinical specimens by the FISH method. However, the E-test was performed on 24 H. pylori isolates because no growth was seen in one gastric biopsy specimen (Table 1). The reason for this difference is that coccoid forms of H. pylori are not culturable, but they are visible by the FISH test.15 Perhaps the bacterium loses its viability during transport to the lab, so no growth will be seen on culture medium, while the FISH technique could detect it in the specimen.16On the other hand, the FISH technique showed both susceptible and resistant strains of H. pylori in gastric biopsies, simultaneously, and this is important in view of successful treatment of the patients. Some reports have been shown that the FISH method could identify a low population of clarithromycin-resistant strains easier than the E-test.16 The incidence of clarithromycin-resistant H. pylori has been reported as about 15%,15,16 therefore, in 85% of cases, susceptible strains of this bacterium will be determined by the FISH method in a short time. In comparison with former methods, H. pylori resistance (or MIC) will be determined by the E-test for only a few isolates (recovered from specimens during 48 to 96 hours incubation), on the agar plate, after 2 days.We conclude that FISH technique is a rapid technique for detection of H. pylori, and related clarithromycin-resistant strains. This technique is a suitable method to determine the susceptibility of H. pylori to clarithromycin, especially in situations in which the physician needs to decide quickly on treatment.ARTICLE REFERENCES:1. Everhart JE. Recent developments in the epidemiology of Helicobacter pylori . Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2000; 29:559-578. Google Scholar2. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Helicobacter pylori in peptic Ulcer Disease. Helicobacter pylori in peptic ulcer disease . JAMA. 1994; 272:65-69. Google Scholar3. Suerbaum S, Michetti P. Helicobacter pylori infections . N Engl J Med. 2002; 347:1175-1186. Google Scholar4. Halitim F, Vincent P, Michaud L, et al. High rate of Helicobacter pylori reinfection in children and adolescents . Helicobacter. 2006; 11(3):168-72. Google Scholar5. . Current European concepts in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. The Maastricht Consensus Report European Helicobacter pylori Study Group . Gut. 1997; 41:8-13. Google Scholar6. Lind T, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S, Unge P, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori using one-week triple therapies combining omeprazole with two antimicrobials: the MACH 1 study . Helicobacter. 1996; 1:138-44. Google Scholar7. Sharara AI, Chaar HF, Aoun E, et al. Efficacy and safety of rabeprazol, amoxicillin and gatifloxacin after treatment failure of initial H. pylori eradication . Helicobacter. 2006; 11:231-236. Google Scholar8. Matsuhisa T, Kawai T, Masaoka T, et al. Efficacy of metronidazole as second-line drug for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection in the Japanese population: a multicenter study in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area . Helicobacter. 2006; 11(3):152-8. Google Scholar9. Zullo A, Hassan C, Campo SMA, Morini S. Evolving therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection . Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents. 2004; 14(10):1453-64. Google Scholar10. Eun CS, Han DS, Park JY, et al. Changing pattern of antimicrobial resistance of Helicobacter pylori in Korean patients with peptic ulcer diseases . J Gastroent. 2003; 38(5):436-441. Google Scholar11. Megraud F. Antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori infection . Br Med Bull. 1998; 54:207-16. Google Scholar12. Sherif M, Mohran Z, Fatty H, et al. Universal High-Level Primary Metronidazole Resistance in Helicobacter pylori Isolated from Children in Egypt J . Clin Microbial. 2004; 42(10):4832-4834. Google Scholar13. Al-Qurashi AR, El-Morsy F, Al-Quorain AA. Evalution of metronidazole and tetracycline susceptibility pattern in H. pylori at a hospital in Saudi Arabia . Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001; 17(3):233-6. Google Scholar14. Bindayna KM. Antibiotic susceptibilities of Helicobacter pylori . Saudi Med J. 2001; 22(1):53-57. Google Scholar15. Trebesius K, Panthel K, Strobel S, et al. Rapid and Specific Detection of Helicobacter pylori Macrolide Resistance in Gastric Tissue by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization . Gut. 2000; 46:608-614. Google Scholar16. Russmann H, Kempf VAJ, Koletzko S, et al. Comparison of Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization and Conventional Culuring for Detection of Helicobacter pylori in Gastric Biopsy Specimens . J Clin Microbiol. 2001; 39(1):304-308. Google Scholar17. Morris JM, Reasonover AL, Bruce MG, et al. Evaluation of seaFAST, a Rapid fluorescent in situ hybridization test for detection of H. pylori and resistant to clarithromycin in paraffin-embedded biopsy sections . J Clin Microbiol. 2005; 43(7):3494-3496. Google Scholar18. Moter A, Gobel UB. Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) for Direct Visualization of Microorganisms . J Microbiol Methods. 2000; 41:85-112. Google Scholar19. Perry-O’keefe H, Rigby S, Oliveria K, et al. Identification of Indicator Micro-organisms using a Standardized PNA FISH Method . J Microbiol Methods. 2001; 47:281-292. Google Scholar20. Moreno Y, Botella S, Alonso JL, et al. Specific Detection of Arcobacter and Campylobacter Strains in Water and Sewage by PCR and Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization . Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003; 69(2):1181-1186. Google Scholar21. Russmann H, Adler K, Haan R, et al. Rapid and Accurate Determination of Genotypic Clarithromycin Resistance in Cultured Helicobacter pylori by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization . J Clin Microbiol. 2001; 39(11):4142-4144. Google Scholar22. Forbes BA, Sahm DF, Wissfeld AS. Bailey & Scott’s Diagnostic Microbiology, 11th edition. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2002;169-201285-296274-281. Google Scholar23. Carnahan AM, Andrews G. Vibrio, Aeromonase, Plesiomonas, and Campylobacter Species . In: Mahon CR, Manuselis G. Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 2000;515-537. Google Scholar24. MacFaddin JF. Urease Test . In: McGrew L. Biochemical Tests for Identification of Medical Bacteria, 3rd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000;424-438. Google Scholar25. Porter IA, Duguid JP. Vibrio, Aeromonas, Plesiomonas, Sprillium, Campylobacter . In: Collee JG, Duguid JP, Fraser AG, et al.Mackie & McCarthey, Practical Medical Microbiology, 13th edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1989;505-524. Google Scholar26. Megraud F. Epidemiology and mechanism of antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori . Gastroenterology. 1998; 115:1278-82. Google Scholar27. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain C, et al. Current concepts in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. The Maastricht 2–2000 Consensus Report . Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2002; 16:167-180. Google Scholar28. Samra Z, Shmuely H, Niv Y, et al. Resistance of H. pylori isolated in Israel to metronidazole, clarithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin and cefixime . J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002; 49:1023-1026. Google Scholar29. Bontems P, Devaster JM, Coevaglia L, et al. Twelve year observation of primary and secondary antibiotic-resistant Helicobacter pylori strains in children . Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001; 20:1033-1038. Google Scholar Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 27, Issue 2March-April 2007 Metrics History Accepted1 November 2006Published online5 April 2007 AcknowledgementThis study was financially supported by the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Center, Ahwaz Jundi Shapour University of Medical Sciences, Ahwaz, Iran.InformationCopyright © 2007, Annals of Saudi MedicineThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License." @default.
• W2413376451 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2413376451 creator A5045803548 @default.
• W2413376451 creator A5059740510 @default.
• W2413376451 creator A5085870342 @default.
• W2413376451 date "2007-03-01" @default.
• W2413376451 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2413376451 title "Rapid detection of clarithromycin-resistant <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> in patients with dyspepsia by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) compared with the E-test" @default.
• W2413376451 cites W1568115877 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W1642222373 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W1970499749 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W1974785123 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W1983952263 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W1985905253 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W1986405004 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W1986948316 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2019374755 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2021764079 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2022948175 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2040698537 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2052057849 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2061938579 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2091705983 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2093414826 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2105777613 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2112739321 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2123848597 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2133833697 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2147272440 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2154239845 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W2172108852 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W4237403611 @default.
• W2413376451 cites W4248277133 @default.
• W2413376451 doi "https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2007.84" @default.
• W2413376451 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6077032" @default.
• W2413376451 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17356313" @default.
• W2413376451 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2413376451 type Work @default.
• W2413376451 sameAs 2413376451 @default.
• W2413376451 citedByCount "16" @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512012 @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512013 @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512015 @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512016 @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512017 @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512018 @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512019 @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512020 @default.
• W2413376451 countsByYear W24133764512021 @default.
• W2413376451 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2413376451 hasAuthorship W2413376451A5045803548 @default.
• W2413376451 hasAuthorship W2413376451A5059740510 @default.
• W2413376451 hasAuthorship W2413376451A5085870342 @default.
• W2413376451 hasBestOaLocation W24133764511 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C105580179 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C153294291 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C2776409635 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C2776962512 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C2777542201 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C2777822432 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C2909208804 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C2910671496 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C30481170 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C505870484 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C81439078 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C89423630 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConcept C90924648 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C104317684 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C105580179 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C121332964 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C153294291 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C2776409635 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C2776962512 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C2777542201 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C2777822432 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C2909208804 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C2910671496 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C30481170 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C505870484 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C54355233 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C71924100 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C81439078 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C86803240 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C89423630 @default.
• W2413376451 hasConceptScore W2413376451C90924648 @default.
• W2413376451 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2413376451 hasLocation W24133764511 @default.
• W2413376451 hasLocation W24133764512 @default.
• W2413376451 hasLocation W24133764513 @default.
• W2413376451 hasLocation W24133764514 @default.
• W2413376451 hasOpenAccess W2413376451 @default.
• W2413376451 hasPrimaryLocation W24133764511 @default.
• W2413376451 hasRelatedWork W1492199157 @default.

• next