MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative Analysis of Plant and Animal Models for Characterization of <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> Virulence

2003· article· en· W2138506519 on OpenAlexafffund
Steve P. Bernier, Laura Silo-Suh, Donald E. Woods, Dennis E. Ohman, Pamela A. Sokol

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection and Immunity · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDuPont Pioneer
KeywordsVirulenceBiologyMicrobiologyBurkholderia cepacia complexBurkholderiaVirologyBacteriaGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple alfalfa model was developed as an alternative infection model for virulence studies of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. Symptoms of disease were observed in wounded alfalfa seedlings within 7 days following inoculation of 10(1) to 10(5) CFU of most strains of the B. cepacia complex. Strains from seven genomovars of the B. cepacia complex were tested for virulence in the alfalfa model, and the degree of virulence was generally similar in strains belonging to the same genomovar. Strains of Burkholderia multivorans and some strains of Burkholderia stabilis did not cause symptoms of disease in alfalfa seedlings. Representative strains were also tested for virulence using the rat agar bead model. Most of the strains tested were able to establish chronic lung infections; B. stabilis strains were the exception. Most of the strains that were virulent in the alfalfa infection model were also virulent in the lung infection model. The B. cepacia genomovar III mutants K56pvdA::tp and K56-H15 were significantly less virulent in the alfalfa infection model than their parent strain. Therefore, this alfalfa infection model may be a useful tool for assessing virulence of strains of the B. cepacia complex and identifying new virulence-associated genes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations86
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection and ImmunitySame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207