A comparison of selected methods for measuring the virulence properties of<i>Listeria</i>spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comparative ability of different methods to assess virulence of Listeria species was investigated in ten Listeria strains. All strains were initially subjected to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis to determine their relatedness. Virulence characteristics were subsequently tested for by (i) determining the presence of six virulence genes by polymerase chain reaction; (ii) testing for the production of listeriolysin O, phosphatidylcholine phospholipase C, and phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase C; (iii) investigating the hydrophobicity of the strains; (iv) determining the strains ability to attach to, enter, and replicate within the Caco-2 cells. Variations in most of the virulence characteristics were obvious across the strains for the range of tests performed. A wide range of anomalous results among methods were apparent. In particular, the presence of virulence genes was found to be unrelated to the production of virulence-associated proteins in vitro, while virulence protein production and hydrophobicity in Listeria monocytogenes were found to be unrelated or marginally related, respectively, to the ability to invade the Caco-2 cell line. It was concluded that the methods investigated were unable to consistently and unequivocally measure the differences in the virulence properties of the strains.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".