Influence of Conserved and Hypervariable Genetic Markers on Genotyping Circulating Strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presently there is no vaccine against Neisseria gonorrhoeae and therefore accurate information on gonococcal transmission plays a crucial role for interventions designed to limit the spread of infections caused by this microorganism. We evaluated the impact of two different categories of genetic markers, (i) concatenated sequences of 10 housekeeping genes and (ii) hypervariable porB DNA sequences, on the genetic relatedness and subsequently on genotyping analysis of this human pathogen. Eighty gonococcal isolates from Canada, China, the US, Argentina, Venezuela and Chile, collected over different times, were analyzed. Our results show that the choice of genetic marker had a profound effect on the interpretation of genotyping results associated with N. gonorrhoeae. The concatenated sequences of the housekeeping genes preserved the genetic relatedness of closely related isolates, enabling detection of the predominant strains circulating within a community (Saskatchewan, Canada) over an extended period of time. In contrast, a genetic marker based on antigen gene, porB, may lead to a failure to detect these predominant circulating strains. Based on the analysis of the DNA sequences of the 10 housekeeping genes, we identified two major clonal complexes, CC33 and CC22, which comprised STs from China, and Argentina as well as two STs from Canada. Several minor clonal complexes were observed among isolates from Saskatchewan. eBURST analysis suggested that the majority of the tested gonococcal isolates from Saskatchewan, Canada were endemic, with only a couple of genotypes introduced.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".