Use of Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) Analysis for the Identification of <i>Giardia intestinalis</i> Subtypes and Phylogenetic Tree Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) was used to investigate genetic polymorphisms among 25 isolates of Giardia intestinalis and to assess the utility of RAPD for subtype detection and genealogical analysis. Using data obtained for six human and 19 animal-derived isolates in polymerase chain reactions using 13 different primers, phylogenetic trees were constructed and bootstrap values computed by the program FreeTree. Three major clades were distinguished, corresponding to previously defined genetic assemblages A, B, and E. The purported specificity of assemblage E genotypes for artiodactyl hosts was supported. Assemblages A and B showed wide host spectra, including human and animal hosts. No correlation was found between the genotype of analyzed isolates and the presence or absence of the double-stranded RNA Giardiavirus. The results indicate that RAPD data provide reliable genetic information that can be used for both "fingerprinting" and genealogical purposes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".