Simultaneous Analysis of Multiple Enzymes Increases Accuracy of Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis in Assigning Genetic Relationships among Homogeneous <i>Salmonella</i> Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to a highly homogeneous genetic composition, the subtyping of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis strains to an epidemiologically relevant level remains intangible for pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). We reported previously on a highly discriminatory PFGE-based subtyping scheme for S. enterica serovar Enteritidis that relies on a single combined cluster analysis of multiple restriction enzymes. However, the ability of a subtyping method to correctly infer genetic relatedness among outbreak strains is also essential for effective molecular epidemiological traceback. In this study, genetic and phylogenetic analyses were performed to assess whether concatenated enzyme methods can cluster closely related salmonellae into epidemiologically relevant hierarchies. PFGE profiles were generated by use of six restriction enzymes (XbaI, BlnI, SpeI, SfiI, PacI, and NotI) for 74 strains each of S. enterica serovar Enteritidis and S. enterica serovar Typhimurium. Correlation analysis of Dice similarity coefficients for all pairwise strain comparisons underscored the importance of combining multiple enzymes for the accurate assignment of genetic relatedness among Salmonella strains. The mean correlation increased from 81% and 41% for single-enzyme PFGE up to 99% and 96% for five-enzyme combined PFGE for S. enterica serovar Enteritidis and S. enterica serovar Typhimurium strains, respectively. Data regressions approached 100% correlation among Dice similarities for S. enterica serovar Enteritidis and S. enterica serovar Typhimurium strains when a minimum of six enzymes were concatenated. Phylogenetic congruence measures singled out XbaI, BlnI, SfiI, and PacI as most concordant for S. enterica serovar Enteritidis, while XbaI, BlnI, and SpeI were most concordant among S. enterica serovar Typhimurium strains. Together, these data indicate that PFGE coupled with sufficient enzyme numbers and combinations is capable of discerning accurate genetic relationships among Salmonella serovars comprising highly homogeneous strain complexes.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".