Molecular Evidence Supporting Ehrlichia canis–Like Infection in Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, the pathogenic role of Ehrlichia canis in cats has been proposed predominantly on the basis of the serologic evidence of natural infection and the infrequent detection of morulae-like structures within the cytoplasm of leukocytes in cats. The purpose of this report was to provide molecular evidence supporting E. canis-like infection in 3 cats that had clinical manifestations consistent with canine ehrlichiosis but lacked antibodies to E. canis antigens. Serum from all 3 cats contained antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). The predominant disease manifestation was polyarthritis in 1 cat and bone marrow hypoplasia or dysplasia. accompanied by pancytopenia or anemia and thrombocytopenia, in 1 cat each. The alignment of E. canis partial 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA: 382 nucleotide positions), amplified from EDTA blood samples from each cat, was identical to each other and was identical to a canine isolate of E. canis (GenBank accession number AF373613). In 1 cat, concurrent treatment with corticosteroids may have interfered with the therapeutic effectiveness of doxycycline for the elimination of E. canis-like infection. To further define the spectrum of ehrlichiosis in cats, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing may be necessary until serologic testing is thoroughly validated in experimentally or naturally infected cats. In addition, until E. canis has been isolated from cats and several tissue culture isolates are available from disparate geographic regions for detailed comparative genetic study, the molecular evidence presented in this study supporting E. canis-like infection in cats must be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".