Can Campylobacter coli induce Guillain-Barré syndrome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Campylobacter jejuni enteritis is the most frequently identified infection preceding the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and neural damage is thought to be induced through molecular mimicry between C. jejuni lipo-oligosaccharide (LOS) and human gangliosides [1].It has been questioned whether or not other Campylobacter species, including C. curvus, C. upsaliensis and C. coli, could be similarly involved [2][3][4].This is relevant because it would imply that bacterial factors considered important in the aetiology of GBS crossed species barriers.Two prior reports have appeared where C. coli was putatively associated with a case of GBS [2,3].We here present two female patients with GBS, one from the Netherlands (patient GB50) and one from France (patient 664H2004).From a faecal specimen obtained for both patients, a C. coli strain was isolated.On the basis of surface protein profiling, the strains were unequivocally demonstrated to belong to the species C. coli (results not shown).The strains were encoded GB50 and 664H2004, respectively, and stored at -80°C.For patient GB50, a serum sample obtained at the acute GBS phase was available.This sample was also stored at -80°C.Strains were grown on Mueller-Hinton agar at 37°C for 48 h, after which DNA was extracted, as described by Pitcher et al. [5].Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis was performed, as described by Duim et al. [6].In brief, 1 µg of genomic DNA was digested with the HindIII-HhaI restriction enzyme combination and sitespecific adaptors were ligated to the restriction fragments.Primers complementary to the adaptor and restriction site sequence were used in pre-selective and selective polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifications.The amplified and fluorescently labelled fragments were loaded on an ABI Prism 377 automated sequencer.GeneScan version 3.1 (Applied Biosystems) was used for data collection, and the AFLP profiles were imported, using the CrvConv filter, in BioNumerics 4.61 (Applied Maths, Belgium) for normalisation and further analysis.The obtained AFLP profiles were included in an in-house AFLP reference frame, containing
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".