Methods for Genotyping Verotoxin‐Producing <i>Escherichia coli</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) is annually incriminated in more than 100,000 cases of enteric foodborne human disease and in losses amounting to $US 2.5 billion every year. A number of genotyping methods have been developed to track VTEC infections and determine diversity and evolutionary relationships among these microorganisms. These methods have facilitated monitoring and surveillance of foodborne VTEC outbreaks and early identification of outbreaks or clusters of outbreaks. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) has been used extensively to track and differentiate VTEC because of its high discriminatory power, reproducibility and ease of standardization. Multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeats analysis (MLVA) and microarrays are the latest genotyping methods that have been applied to discriminate VTEC. MLVA, a simpler and less expensive method, is proving to have a discriminatory power comparable to that of PFGE. Microarrays are successfully being applied to differentiate VTEC and make inferences on genome diversification. Novel methods that are being evaluated for subtyping VTEC include the detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms and optical mapping. This review discusses the principles, applications, advantages and disadvantages of genotyping methods that have been used to differentiate VTEC strains. These methods have been mainly used to differentiate strains of O157:H7 VTEC and to a lesser extent non-O157 VTEC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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".