emm and sof gene sequence variation in relation to serological typing of opacity-factor-positive group A streptococci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 40-60% of group A streptococcal (GAS) isolates are capable of opacifying sera, due to the expression of the sof (serum opacity factor) gene. The emm (M protein gene) and sof 5' sequences were obtained from a diverse set of GAS reference strains and clinical isolates, and correlated with M serotyping and anti-opacity-factor testing results. Attempts to amplify sof from strains with M serotypes or emm types historically associated with the opacity-factor-negative phenotype were negative, except for emm12 strains, which were found to contain a highly conserved sof sequence. There was a strong correlation of certain M serotypes with specific emm sequences regardless of strain background, and likewise a strong association of specific anti-opacity-factor (AOF) types to sof gene sequence types. In several examples, M type identity, or partial identity shared between strains with differing emm types, was correlated with short, highly conserved 5' emm sequences likely to encode M-type-specific epitopes. Additionally, each of three pairs of historically distinct M type reference strains found to share the same 5' emm sequence, were also found to share M serotype specificity. Based upon sof sequence comparisons between strains of the same and of differing AOF types, an approximately 450 residue domain was determined likely to contain key epitopes required for AOF type specificity. Analysis of two Sof sequences that were not highly homologous, yet shared a common AOF type, further implicated a 107 aa portion of this 450-residue domain in putatively containing AOF-specific epitopes. Taken together, the serological data suggest that AOF-specific epitopes for all Sof proteins may reside within a region corresponding to this 107-residue sequence. The presence of specific, hypervariable emm/sof pairs within multiple isolates appears likely to be a reliable indicator of their overall genetic relatedness, and to be very useful for accurate subtyping of GAS isolates by an approach that has relevance to decades of past M-type-based epidemiological data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".