MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2014201325 · doi:10.1139/w02-018

Utility of a pre-optimized kit for random amplified polymorphic DNA in typing<i>Candida albicans</i>

2002· article· en· W2014201325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathleen Riederer, Jambunathan Ramanathan, Jeff Barczak, J. Baran, Riad Khatib

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRAPDTypingBiologyCandida albicansGeneticsCorpus albicansgenomic DNAMicrobiologyDNA profilingDNAKaryotypeGeneChromosomeGenetic diversityPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utility of a pre-optimized kit for random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) was assessed in typing diverse strains of Candida albicans from epidemiologically unrelated inpatients (interpatient analysis) and in detecting clonal variations that maybe present within individual patient isolates (intrapatient analysis). Stool samples from inpatients were cultured on Inhibitory Mold agar. Nine individual colonies from all patients with > or =9 colonies of C. albicans (n = 18) were selected, frozen, and karyotyped using CHEF genomic DNA plug kits and CHEF-DRIII. Each of the selected colonies was then analyzed by RAPD, utilizing the selected kit, with 6 primers. Interpatient analysis revealed 9 karyotypes and 17 RAPD composites. RAPD discrimination was significantly better (p < 0.001). Intrapatient analysis revealed 34 (21%) and 33 (20.4%) variants among 162 colonies tested by RAPD and karyotyping, respectively. The results were discordant in 25 variants, all with differences of 1-3 bands. These results illustrate that this pre-optimized kit for RAPD provides excellent discrimination of genetically unrelated strains. Its performance in delineating subtle clonal differences was comparable with karyotyping; both methods failed to detect all minor genetic variations. The ease of use and quick turnaround time of this kit offer a practical and reliable method for typing diverse strains of C. albicans, but may be inadequate for assessing microevolution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Microbiology→Same topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility→French-language works237,207→