MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052215531 · doi:10.1089/vbz.2006.6.395

Diversity of <i>Bartonella</i> Genotypes in Richardson's Ground Squirrel Populations

2006· article· en· W2052215531 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Claire M. Jardine, Dorothy McColl, Gary A. Wobeser, Frederick A. Leighton

Bibliographic record

VenueVector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBartonella species infections research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMedical Research CouncilHealth CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsBartonellaGenotypeBiologyVeterinary medicineVirologyZoologyPopulationGeneticsGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diversity and dynamics of Bartonella genotypes found in wild Richardson's ground squirrels (RGS), Spermophilus richardsonii were monitored at multiple sites in Saskatchewan, Canada from 2002 to 2004. Based on sequence analysis of a portion of the Bartonella citrate synthase (gltA) gene, four different genotypes were detected in 233 isolates from 176 animals. The majority (87%) of sequences were identified as genotype H, with genotypes I, J, and K accounting for 8%, 4%, and 1% of sequences, respectively. Only one animal was concurrently infected with multiple Bartonella genotypes. Of 23 animals sampled four times or more, 26% were never infected with Bartonella. Of 32 RGS infected with Bartonella at first capture and then sampled again the following month, 50% were infected with the same Bartonella genotype, 41% were no longer infected, and 9% were infected with a different Bartonella genotype in the subsequent sample. The diversity of Bartonella genotypes varied among sites. At one site almost all RGS were infected with genotype H in September, and up to 60% of the same population was infected with genotype I the following spring. We compare our results with previous studies of Bartonella infections in rodents and discuss possible explanations for the observed differences.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVector-Borne and Zoonotic DiseasesSame topicBartonella species infections researchFrench-language works237,207