MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1776209622 · doi:10.1186/1471-2180-6-94

The biochemical differentiation of Enterobacter sakazakii genotypes

2006· article· en· W1776209622 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carol Iversen, Mike Waddington, Jim J Farmer, Stephen Forsythe

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Microbiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnterobacteriaceae and Cronobacter Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsBiology16S ribosomal RNAEnterobacterGenotypePhylogenetic treeCluster (spacecraft)GenotypingMicrobiologyGeneticsBacteriaGeneEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Enterobacter sakazakii is an emergent pathogen that has been associated with neonatal infections through contaminated powdered infant milk formula. The species was defined by Farmer et al. (1980) who described 15 biogroups according to the biochemical characterization of 57 strains. This present study compares genotypes (DNA cluster groups based on partial 16S rDNA sequence analysis) with the biochemical traits for 189 E. sakazakii strains. RESULTS: Analysis of partial 16S rDNA sequences gave 4 well defined phylogenetic groups. Cluster group 1 was composed of the majority of strains (170/189) and included Biogroups 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13 and 14. Cluster 3 corresponded with Biogroup 15 and cluster 4 with Biogroups 6, 10 and 12. Cluster group 2 comprised a new Biogroup 16. For the isolates in this study, the four DNA cluster groups can be distinguished using the inositol, dulcitol and indole tests. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates an agreement between genotyping (partial 16S rDNA) and biotyping and describes a new biogroup of E. sakazakii.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC MicrobiologySame topicEnterobacteriaceae and Cronobacter ResearchFrench-language works237,207