MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

So similar, yet so different: uncovering distinctive features in the genomes of Salmonella enterica serovars Typhimurium and Typhi

2010· review· en· W1911152711 on OpenAlexafffund
Sébastien C. Sabbagh, Chantal Forest, Christine Lepage, Jean‐Mathieu Leclerc, France Daigle

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSalmonella entericaBiologySerotypeGenomeVirulenceSalmonellaSalmonella typhiGeneticsPathogenesisPathogenMicrobiologyGeneComputational biologyBacteriaImmunologyEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salmonella enterica represents a major human and animal pathogen. Many S. enterica genomes have been completed and many more genome sequencing projects are underway, constituting an excellent resource for comparative genome analysis studies leading to a better understanding of bacterial evolution and pathogenesis. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and Typhi are the best-characterized serovars, with the first being involved in localized gastroenteritis in many hosts and the latter causing a systemic human-specific disease. Here, we summarize the major genetic differences between the two different serovars. We detail the divergent repertoires of the virulence factors responsible for the pathogenesis of the organisms and that ultimately result in the distinct clinical outcomes of infection. This comparative genomic overview highlights hypotheses for future investigations on S. enterica pathogenesis and the basis of host specificity.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations270
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207