Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Genes of <i>Escherichia coli</i> Isolates from Swine in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 318 Escherichia coli isolates obtained from diarrheic and healthy pigs in Ontario from 2001 to 2003 were examined for their susceptibility to 19 antimicrobial agents. They were tested by PCR for the presence of resistance genes for tetracycline, streptomycin, sulfonamides, and apramycin and of 12 common virulence genes of porcine E. coli. Antimicrobial resistance frequency among E. coli isolates from swine in Ontario was moderate in comparison with other countries and was higher in isolates from pigs with diarrhea than in isolates from healthy finisher pigs. Resistance profiles suggest that cephamycinases may be produced by > or = 8% of enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC). Resistance to quinolones was detected only in enterotoxigenic E. coli (< or = 3%). The presence of sul3 was demonstrated for the first time in Canada in porcine E. coli isolates. Associations were observed among tetA, sul1, aadA, and aac(3)IV and among tetB, sul2, and strA/strB, with a strong negative association between tetA and tetB. The paa and sepA genes were detected in 92% of porcine ETEC, and strong statistical associations due to colocation on a large plasmid were observed between tetA, estA, paa, and sepA. Due at least in part to gene linkages, the distribution of resistance genes was very different between ETEC isolates and other porcine E. coli isolates. This demonstrates that antimicrobial resistance epidemiology differs significantly between pathogenic and commensal E. coli isolates. These results may have important implications with regards to the spread and persistence of resistance and virulence genes in bacterial populations and to the prudent use of antimicrobial agents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".