Evaluation of DNA extraction methods for <i>Bacillus anthracis</i> spores isolated from spiked food samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Nine commercial DNA extraction kits were evaluated for the isolation of DNA from 10-fold serial dilutions of Bacillus anthracis spores using quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). The three kits determined by qPCR to yield the most sensitive and consistent detection (Epicenter MasterPure Gram Positive; MoBio PowerFood; ABI PrepSeq) were subsequently tested for their ability to isolate DNA from trace amounts of B. anthracis spores (approx. 6·5 × 10(1) and 1·3 × 10(2) CFU in 25 ml or 50 g of food sample) spiked into complex food samples including apple juice, ham, whole milk and bagged salad and recovered with immunomagnetic separation (IMS). METHODS AND RESULTS: The MasterPure kit effectively and consistently isolated DNA from low amounts of B. anthracis spores captured from food samples. Detection was achieved from apple juice, ham, whole milk and bagged salad from as few as 65 ± 14, 68 ± 8, 66 ± 4 and 52 ± 16 CFU, respectively, and IMS samples were demonstrated to be free of PCR inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of B. anthracis spores isolated from food by IMS differs substantially between commercial DNA extraction kits; however, sensitive results can be obtained with the MasterPure Gram Positive kit. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The extraction protocol identified herein combined with IMS is novel for B. anthracis and allows detection of low levels of B. anthracis spores from contaminated food samples.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".