Identifying Host Sources of Fecal Pollution: Diversity of <i>Escherichia coli</i> in Confined Dairy and Swine Production Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive extragenic palindromic PCR fingerprinting of Escherichia coli is one microbial source tracking approach for identifying the host source origin of fecal pollution in aquatic systems. The construction of robust known-source libraries is expensive and requires an informed sampling strategy. In many types of farming systems, waste is stored for several months before being released into the environment. In this study we analyzed, by means of repetitive extragenic palindromic PCR using the enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus primers and comparative analysis using the Bionumerics software, collections of E. coli obtained from a dairy farm and from a swine farm, both of which stored their waste as a slurry in holding tanks. In all fecal samples, obtained from either barns or holding tanks, the diversity of the E. coli populations was underrepresented by collections of 500 isolates. In both the dairy and the swine farms, the diversity of the E. coli community was greater in the manure holding tank than in the barn, when they were sampled on the same date. In both farms, a comparison of stored manure samples collected several months apart suggested that the community composition changed substantially in terms of the detected number, absolute identity, and relative abundance of genotypes. Comparison of E. coli populations obtained from 10 different locations in either holding tank suggested that spatial variability in the E. coli community should be accounted for when sampling. Overall, the diversity in E. coli populations in manure slurry storage facilities is significant and likely is problematic with respect to library construction for microbial source tracking applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".