MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of a rapid microbial detection method via phage lytic amplification assay coupled with Live/Dead fluorochromic stains

2007· article· en· W2064587332 on OpenAlexaff
Sabah Jassim, Mansel W. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueLetters in Applied Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLytic cycleBacteriaBiologyMicrobiologyBacteriophagePseudomonas aeruginosaPopulationPseudomonadaceaeMolecular biologyVirusVirologyEscherichia coliGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To develop a method for rapid detection of bacteria via bacteriophage amplification coupled with exogenous fluorochromic stains. METHODS AND RESULTS: A method for the rapid detection of bacteria was developed which consisted of exposing the sample suspected to contain target cells to host-specific phage. After at least one infection cycle, bacteria known to be infected by the phage (helper cells) were added and the number of nascent phage particles was estimated using the Live/Dead BacLight Bacterial Viability kit. Using Pseudomonas aeruginosa, it was shown that the dead helper cell population following phage infection was proportional to the initial number of target cells present in the original sample. Approximately 1 x 10(1) CFU per ml of P. aeruginosa could be detected within 4 h without the need for enrichment. CONCLUSIONS: The phage lytic amplification assay coupled with exogenous fluorochromic stains was able to detect approx. 1 x 10(1) CFU per ml of the target bacterium within 4 h. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: A method to detect low number of bacterial cells in a sample within 4 h without the need for enrichment was developed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLetters in Applied MicrobiologySame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207