<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>Strains That Express Serotype 5 or Serotype 8 Capsular Polysaccharides Differ in Virulence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most isolates of Staphylococcus aureus produce a serotype 5 (CP5) or 8 (CP8) capsular polysaccharide. To investigate whether CP5 and CP8 differ in their biological properties, we created isogenic mutants of S. aureus Reynolds that expressed CP5, CP8, or no capsule. Biochemical analyses of CP5 and CP8 purified from the isogenic S. aureus strains were consistent with published structures. The degree of O acetylation of each polysaccharide was similar, but CP5 showed a greater degree of N acetylation. Mice challenged with the CP5(+) strain showed a significantly higher bacteremia level than mice challenged with the CP8(+) strain. Similarly, the CP5(+) strain survived preferentially in the bloodstream and kidneys of infected mice challenged with a mixed inoculum containing both strains. The enhanced virulence of the CP5(+) strain in vivo correlated with its greater resistance to in vitro killing in whole mouse blood. Likewise, in vitro opsonophagocytic killing assays with human neutrophils and sera revealed greater survival of the Reynolds (CP5) strain, even though the kinetics of opsonization by C3b and iC3b was similar for both the CP5(+) and CP8(+) strains. Electron micrographs demonstrated C3 molecules on the cell wall beneath the capsule layer for both serotype 5 and 8 strains. Purified CP5 and CP8 stimulated a modest oxidative burst in human neutrophils but failed to activate the alternative complement pathway. These results indicate that CP5 and CP8 differ in a number of biological properties, and these differences likely contribute to the relative virulence of serotype 5 and 8 S. aureus in vivo.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".