MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130559299 · doi:10.1177/104063870501700612

A Method for Extracting Genomic DNA from Individual Elaphostrongyline (Nematoda: Protostrongylidae) Larvae and Differentiation of <i>Elaphostrongylus</i> Spp. from <i>Parelaphostrongylus</i> Spp. by PCR Assay

2005· article· en· W2130559299 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neil B. Chilton, Florence Huby‐Chilton, Murray W. Lankester, Alvin A. Gajadhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicHelminth infection and control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
Keywordsgenomic DNABiologyLarvaDNAPolymerase chain reactionZoologyVeterinary medicineMolecular biologyEcologyGeneGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports a rapid and effective method for the extraction and purification of genomic DNA (gDNA) from individual first-stage larvae (L1) of elaphostrongyline nematodes that had been stored frozen or fixed in 95% ethanol for 1 to 5 years. The method was highly effective for L1s of all 6 species of elaphostrongylines, based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of a partial fragment of the first internal transcribed spacer (ITS-1) of the ribosomal DNA. Differences were detected in the sizes of partial ITS-1 amplicons between the 2 elaphostrongyline genera, Elaphostrongylus and Parelaphostrongylus. The reliability of the ITS-1 PCR assay was tested by using L1s of unknown identity from Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The ability to consistently isolate gDNA from individual L1s, together with a simple PCR-based method to distinguish between Parelaphostrongylus and Elaphostrongylus, have important implications for diagnostic testing and for conducting epizootiological studies on these parasites of veterinary importance.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicHelminth infection and controlFrench-language works237,207