MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113231606 · doi:10.1139/w08-017

Evaluation of three polymerase chain reaction techniques for detection of<i>Brucella</i>DNA in peripheral human blood

2008· article· en· W2113231606 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimer (cosmetics)Polymerase chain reactionBrucellaBiologyBrucellosisZoonosisMolecular biologyGeneBrucellaceae16S ribosomal RNADNA extractionVirologyMicrobiologyGeneticsBrucella melitensisChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brucellosis is a widespread zoonosis. Currently the diagnosis of this zoonosis is based on microbiological and serological laboratory tests. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has been used to detect DNA from Brucella. Different target genes, primer pairs, PCR techniques, and extraction procedures have previously been published for Brucella detection. But only a few of these primers have been used in human samples, and only one study has been carried out to compare sensitivity between them. In the present study, 3 sets of primers and 3 different PCR protocols amplifying 3 different regions of the Brucella genome were compared for detection of Brucella DNA in a peripheral-blood PCR assay to conclude which is most suitable for the clinical diagnostic laboratory. These 3 pairs of primers amplify 3 different fragments included in (i) a gene encoding a 31 kDa Brucella abortus antigen (B4/B5), (ii) a sequence 16S rRNA of B. abortus (F4/R2), and (iii) a gene encoding an outer membrane protein (omp-2) (JPF/JPR). Some modifications on the reported techniques were applied during the present work to improve the outcome. The results showed that the B4/B5 primer pair had the highest sensitivity for detection of positive samples (98%), the JPF/JPR primer pair detected 88.4% of positive samples, whereas F4/R2 primer pair was the least sensitive, being able to detect only 53.1% of positive samples. The specificity of the 3 techniques was 100%. The B4/B5 primer pair was also able to detect the smallest number of bacteria (700 cfu/mL), whereas JPF/JPR was able to detect 7 x 105 cfu/mL and F4/R2 was able to detect 7 x 107 cfu/mL. It is thus concluded that using the B4/B5 primer PCR with the suggested modifications is a robust assay, which meets the sensitivity requirements to be used for testing of human blood samples for brucellosis in the diagnostic laboratory.

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.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.237 · 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