Prevalence and Impact of Bacteriophages on the Presence of <i>Escherichia coli</i> O157:H7 in Feedlot Cattle and Their Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between endemic bacteriophages infecting E. coli O157:H7 (referred to as "phage") and levels of shedding of E. coli O157:H7 by cattle was investigated in two commercial feedlots in southern Alberta, Canada. Between May and November 2007, 10 pens of cattle were monitored by collection of pooled fecal pats, water with sediment from troughs, manure slurry from the pen floor, and rectal fecal samples from individual animals (20 per pen) at two separate times. Bacteriophages infecting E. coli O157:H7 were detected more frequently (P<0.001) after 18 to 20 h enrichment than by initial screening and were recovered in 239 of 855 samples (26.5% of 411 pooled fecal pats, 23.8% of 320 fecal grab samples, 21.8% of 87 water trough samples, and 94.6% of 37 pen floor slurry samples). Overall, prevalence of phage was highest (P<0.001) in slurry. Recovery of phage from pooled fecal pats was highest (P<0.05) in May. Overall recovery did not differ (P>0.10) between fecal grab samples and pooled fecal pats. A higher prevalence of phage in fecal pats or water trough samples was associated (P<0.01) with reduced prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in rectal fecal samples. There was a weak but significant negative correlation between isolation of phage and E. coli O157:H7 in fecal grab samples (r= -0.11; P<0.05). These data demonstrate that the prevalence of phage fluctuates in a manner similar to that described for E. coli O157:H7. Phage were more prevalent in manure slurry than other environmental sources. The likelihood of fecal shedding of E. coli O157:H7 was reduced if cattle in the pen harbored phage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".