16S Ribosomal RNA Sequence—Based Identification of Veterinary Clinical Bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis methods as tools for identification of 22 phenotypically difficult to identify veterinary clinical bacterial isolates in a veterinary diagnostic laboratory. The study compared 16S rRNA gene sequencing and conventional phenotypic identification methods. Using 16S rRNA full-gene sequencing, 95% (21/22) of the isolates were identified to the genus level and 86% (19/22) to the species level. The conventional or commercially available manual identification phenotypic characterization methods presumptively identified 91% (20/22) of the isolates to the genus level and 1 isolate to the species level. However, only 55% (12/22) or 4.5% (1/22) of the phenotypic identifications were correct at the genus or species level when they were compared with the 16S rRNA full-gene sequencing. This study also compared 16S rRNA full-gene and partial-gene sequencing. The results demonstrated that the best 16S rRNA gene-sequencing approach is full-gene sequencing because it gives the most precise species identification. Sequencing of the variable regions 1, 2, and 3 of the 16S rRNA gene could be used for tentative identification because the ability of this sequencing to identify bacteria to the genus level is similar to that of the 16S rRNA full-gene sequencing. This method identified only 14% (3/22) isolates differently to the species level compared with the 16S rRNA full gene sequence. Sequencing of the variable regions 7, 8, and 9 is not recommended because it gives more ambiguous identifications. The cost of a 16S RNA full-gene-sequencing analysis was Can 160 dollars and Can 60 dollars for a partial 16S rRNA gene sequence, i.e., sequencing of variable regions 1, 2, and 3 or variable regions 7, 8 and 9.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".