Prevalence and Characterization of Clostridium difficile in Beef and Mutton Meats of Isfahan Region, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is a frequent cause of nosocomial infections. During last few years, the mortality rate of C. difficile infection (CDI) increased in healthcare facilities. This organism has become a major public health concern in developed nations. Because of the increasing incidence of acquired-CDI (CA-CDI) and notable genetic overlap between C. difficile isolates from animals and humans, meat has defined as one of the probable transmission route of C. diffiicle to humans. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to determine the prevalence of toxigenic C. difficile in beef and mutton meats consumed as human food in Isfahan, central part of Iran. Furthermore the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-ribotyping employed to compare the genetic pattern of positive isolates in meat with clinical ones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 raw meat samples (81 beef and 119 mutton) were purchased from meat packaging plants. The samples were anaerobically cultured in C. difficile moxalactam norfloxacin (CDMN) broth and plated on selective enrichment medium. The suspicious colonies were recultured on blood agar anaerobically. All C. difficile isolates identified by morphological and biochemical testing were screened by PCR for the presence of genes encoding the triose phosphate isomerase (tpi), toxin A (tcdA), toxin B (tcdB) and binary toxin (cdtB). The genomes of extracted isolates were analyzed by 16S-23S rRNA-based PCR ribotyping. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of C. difficile with two toxigenic genes including tcdA and tcdB was estimated at 4.0%. C. difficile was detected in 2.8%, 2.1%, 3.6% and 6.2% of chopped beef, ground beef, chopped mutton and ground mutton, respectively. The cdtB gene was not found in positive isolates. Eight different ribotypes were found in isolated strains that were not identical with those belonging to patients with CDI. CONCLUSIONS: The results of PCR-ribotyping indicate that no relationship exists between clinical and meat isolates. We therefore conclude that other sources than meat may function as a vector for CA-CDI.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".