MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4232526584 · doi:10.1111/tmi.13174

Authors’ Response

2019· letter· en· W4232526584 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Hossein Motazedian

Notice bibliographique

RevueTropical Medicine & International Health · 2019
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLeishmania infantumLeishmaniaMinicircleCrithidiaBiologyLeishmaniasisAmastigoteMedicineImmunologyMicrobiologyParasite hostingVisceral leishmaniasisGeneticsGeneProtozoa

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

First, I appreciate the attention of Alexei Yu. Kostygov et al. to our article. I would like to begin by describing the history of detecting Crithidia in our study. This will answer some questions in researchers’ minds. Crithidia spp were identified in patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis who were resistant to glucantime treatment. These patients were studied by both in vivo and in vitro methods 1. For the in vivo evaluation, all participants underwent a blood test and were examined for immunodeficiency diseases. For the in vitro test, a sample was taken under sterile conditions from patients’ lesions. One sample was taken for culture and three smears were prepared for microscopic study and PCR 2. PCR was used to amplify the variable area of the minicircle kDNA of Leishmania from the smears and cultures. LINR4 (5′-GGG GTT GGT GTA AAA TAG GG-3 2) and reverse LIN17 (5′-TTT GAA CGG GAT TTC TG-3′) were used to distinguish between three species of Leishmania infantum, Leishmania major, and Leishmania tropica. Direct prepared smears from lesions were used for identification of amastigotes, and the above-mentioned PCR method was also applied for characterization of causative agents 1, 2. Parasites that were grown were also characterized by GAPDH genes in Marc Ouellette's laboratory at the Infectious Disease Research Center, Laval University, Quebec, Canada. Crithidia spp. were first identified in Marc Ouellette's laboratory by using specific primers of GAPDH on cultures of parasites. Why did we not detect the Crithidia in Iran? We suppose this is due to the different growth rates of these species in laboratory conditions and using specific primers for Crithidia spp. identification. We thought it might have been a contamination; thus, to ensure non-contamination of culture media, the following techniques were applied: The smears that were prepared from patients’ wounds were examined by GAPDH primers. The positive results of PCR from smears for Crithidia spp. were sent for sequencing and the results were analyzed by NCBI blast method which revealed similarity with Crithidia species. Karyotyping by PFGE was applied and clinical cases of Crithidia showed totally different chromosomal patterns to Leishmania spp. and also a little difference with C. fasciculata (reference organism). Two of these isolates were analyzed by whole genome sequencing which revealed that they had no similarity to the Crithidia reference despite the sequence of GAPDH gene. The same morphology as Crithidia was observed in culture and was shown in Figure 3 in of our paper 3. Crithidia isolates were incubated at 37 °C and they could withstand the heat stress for more than five days and became round like amastigote form in cultures. Based on the above findings and partial sequencing of SSUrRNA and glycosomal GAPDH, the isolates that were frequently found in lesions of immunocompetent patients are Crithidia-like and not Leishmania infantum, as suggested by Alexei Yu et al. These species have the ability to tolerate body temperature and infect macrophages, which differs from known Crithidia species characteristics and may suggest genomic evolution or a hybrid form. However, this needs further proof by more genomic studies. Recently, two species of these kinds of Crithidia were isolated from Tatera indica (a mammalian reservoir of Leishmania major) from southern Fars province 4.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,184
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Évaluation · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,987
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,264

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,184
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,003
Communication savante0,0070,005
Science ouverte0,0040,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0190,023
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0790,049

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,083
Tête enseignante GPT0,425
Écart entre enseignants0,343 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
DomaineÉvaluation
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTropical Medicine & International HealthMême sujetResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesTravaux en français237 207