Plasmid comparison and molecular analysis of Klebsiella pneumoniae harbouring blaKPC from New York City and Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical isolates and their bla(KPC) plasmids to determine potential relatedness of the isolates and their plasmids harbouring carbapenem resistance mechanisms. METHODS: K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae from New York City (NYC) (n = 19) and Toronto (n = 2) were typed by PFGE and multilocus sequence typing (MLST). bla(KPC)-harbouring plasmids were transformed into Escherichia coli DH10B(TM), restricted using EcoRI and analysed for bla content and replicon (rep) type. Susceptibility profiles for clinical and transformed strains were determined by automated microbroth dilution using CLSI breakpoints. Outer membrane protein (OMP) genes were analysed by sequencing of ompk35 and ompk36. RESULTS: PFGE analysis identified 17 related strains (≥ 80% similarity; 11 KPC-2, 6 KPC-3) where ST258 was the dominant clonal type. All clinical isolates contained both bla(SHV) and bla(TEM-1) and, with the exception of one isolate, were multidrug resistant (MDR). Transformed KPC plasmids (n = 21) carried TEM-1 (n = 18) and were MDR (n = 5). Three plasmid clusters, repFIIA (n = 10), repR (n = 3) and an unknown type (n = 3), were observed. repFllA plasmids were observed from both NYC and Toronto strains. OMP gene analysis revealed premature stop codons in ompk35 and numerous deletions and insertions in ompk36. CONCLUSIONS: The dissemination of bla(KPC) is due both to carriage of similar KPC-harbouring plasmids within genetically distinct K. pneumoniae and to clonal spread of K. pneumoniae with unrelated KPC plasmids.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".