Assessing and analysing contamination of a dairy products processing plant by<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>using antibiotic resistance and PFGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dairy product processing plant was studied for 2.5 years to examine contamination with Staphylococcus aureus and try to correlate the source of contamination. Cultures were submitted to an antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) and characterised by Pulsed-field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis. Results showed that 35.2% (19/51) of food handlers were asymptomatic carriers of S. aureus, and that 90.4% (19/21) of raw milk sampled was contaminated. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from only 10 samples among more than 3200 investigated dairy products. No S. aureus contamination was found on machinery. The AST analysis demonstrated sensitivity of tested S. aureus to oxacillin, cephalothin, vancomycin, gentamicin, and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim. AST analysis generated eight different phenotypic profiles, but did not allow us to identify the source of contamination in seven of ten final products. PFGE analysis proved to be a sensitive method as it generated 42 different DNA banding profiles among the 48 S. aureus investigated, demonstrating a lack of predominance of endemic strains in the plant, contrary to suggestions raised by antibiotic resistance typing. Based on PFGE genotyping, S. aureus strains isolated from four contaminated final products were similar to four S. aureus isolated from raw milk. Five final products contained S. aureus different from all other strains collected, and one showed similarity to a strain isolated from a food handler. These results suggest contamination by raw milk as the main source of contamination of the final dairy products.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".