Evaluation and Field Validation of PCR Tests for Detection of <i>Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae</i> in Subclinically Infected Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eight PCR tests were evaluated for their abilities to detect Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in swine tonsils. At first they were compared regarding their specificities by using A. pleuropneumoniae and related bacterial species and their analytical sensitivities by using tonsils experimentally infected in vitro. PCRs were carried out both directly with tonsil homogenates (direct PCR) and after culture of the sample (after-culture PCR). Most tests demonstrated good specificities; however, some tests gave false-positive results with some non-A. pleuropneumoniae species. High degrees of variation in the analytical sensitivities among the tests were observed for the direct PCRs (10(9) to 10(2) CFU/g of tonsil), whereas those of most of the after-culture PCRs were similar (10(2) CFU/g of tonsil). In a second phase, the effects of sample storage time and storage conditions were evaluated by using tonsils from experimentally infected animals. Storage at -20 degrees C allowed the detection of the organism for at least 4 months. Finally, the omlA PCR test described by Savoye et al. (C. Savoye et al., Vet. Microbiol. 73:337-347, 2000) and the commercially available Adiavet App PCR test were further validated with field samples. Their effectiveness was compared to those of standard and immunomagnetic separation-based methods of bacterial isolation. In addition, a comparison of tonsil biopsy specimens (from living animals) and whole tonsils (collected at the slaughterhouse) was also conducted. A. pleuropneumoniae was neither isolated nor detected by PCR from a herd serologically negative for A. pleuropneumoniae. PCR was more sensitive than the standard isolation method with whole tonsils from three infected herds. After-culture PCR offered the highest degree of sensitivity (93 and 83% for the omlA and Adiavet App PCRs, respectively). The PCR detection rate was higher with whole tonsils than with tonsil biopsy specimens. Good agreement (kappa = 0.65) was found between the presence of A. pleuropneumoniae in tonsils and the individual serological status of the animals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".