MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150420712 · doi:10.1093/jac/dkg040

Acquired macrolide resistance genes and the 1 bp deletion in the mtrR promoter in Neisseria gonorrhoeae

2002· article· en· W2150420712 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sydney Cousin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesHealth CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMTRRNeisseria gonorrhoeaeBiologyMicrobiologyAzithromycinErythromycinGeneAntibacterial agentGeneticsLincosamidesAntibioticsGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance genes erm(B), erm(C) and erm(F), the macrolide resistance mef(A) gene, and the DNA sequence of a 13 bp repeat in the promoter region of the mtrR gene, were determined in 62 Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates collected between 1992 and 1999 in Seattle, Washington, USA. Eleven isolates with erythromycin and azithromycin MICs of < or =0.06 mg/L, had no acquired genes or deletions in the 13 bp repeat region. Among 44 isolates with erythromycin MICs 1.0-16.0 mg/L, and azithromycin MICs 0.06-4.0 mg/L, 16 carried the 1 bp deletion in the mtrR promoter region alone, nine carried one or more of the four acquired macrolide resistance genes alone, and 14 carried both acquired macrolide resistance genes plus the 1 bp deletion in the mtrR promoter region. Three isolates with erythromycin MICs > or = 8 mg/L, and azithromycin MICs of 4.0 mg/L, carried only erm genes. Five isolates with MICs of 1-2 mg/L did not carry the 1 bp deletion, or any of the acquired resistance genes examined. Our data suggest that the 1 bp deletion in the mtrR promoter region is not found in all erythromycin-resistant (MIC > or = 1.0 mg/L) N. gonorrhoeae.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations69
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Antimicrobial ChemotherapySame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207