Enrichment culture can bias the isolation of<i>Campylobacter</i>subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enrichment culture is often used to isolate Campylobacter. This study compared isolation of Campylobacter spp. from 119 broiler chicken environments from two farms, using Preston and modified Exeter (mExeter) and modified Bolton (mBolton) enrichments. mExeter was significantly more effective in isolating Campylobacter spp. from the environmental samples compared to Preston (P<0.001) and mBolton (P<0.04) broths but there was no significant difference between the latter two methods (P>0.05). Enrichment broth type did not affect isolation from chicken faecal or soil and litter samples. C. jejuni was isolated from significantly more environmental samples using mExeter broth compared to Preston (P<0.01) and mBolton (P<0.003) broths; there was no difference between the latter two methods or between all methods for detection of C. coli (P>0.05). Only C. coli was isolated from the soil and litter samples and although both C. jejuni and C. coli were recovered from the faecal samples there was no effect of using different enrichment broths. The majority of samples where the same species had been isolated yielded the same or closely related genotypes as defined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Isolates recovered using Preston and mBolton broths were less genetically diverse than those from mExeter broth. We conclude that the enrichment method used affects both the number and species of Campylobacter isolated from naturally contaminated samples.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".