Evaluation of Repetitive Extragenic Palindromic‐PCR for Discrimination of Fecal <i>Escherichia coli</i> from Humans, and Different Domestic‐ and Wild‐Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the potential of repetitive extragenic palindromic anchored polymerase chain reaction (rep-PCR) in differentiating fecal Escherichia coli isolates of human, domestic- and wild-animal origin that might be used as a molecular tool to identify the possible source(s) of fecal pollution of source water. A total of 625 fecal E. coli isolates of human, 3 domestic- (cow, dog and horse) and 7 wild-animal (black bear, coyote, elk, marmot, mule deer, raccoon and wolf) species were characterized by rep-PCR DNA fingerprinting technique coupled with BOX A1R primer and discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis of rep-PCR DNA fingerprints of fecal E. coli isolates from 11 host sources revealed an average rate of correct classification of 79.89%, and 84.6%, 83.8%, 83.3%, 82.5%, 81.6%, 80.8%, 79.8%, 79.3%, 77.4%, 73.2% and 63.6% of elk, human, marmot, mule deer, cow, coyote, raccoon, horse, dog, wolf and black bear fecal E. coli isolates were assigned to the correct host source. These results suggest that rep-PCR DNA fingerprinting procedures can be used as a source tracking tool for detection of human- as well as animal-derived fecal contamination of water.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".