Improving the Rate of Infectivity of<i>Cryptosporidium parvum</i>Oocysts in Cell Culture Using Centrifugation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centrifugation was evaluated as a method to improve infectivity assays of Cryptosporidium parvum in cell culture using the focus detection method, an immunofluorescence-based method for detecting infectious C. parvum oocysts in vitro. Human ileocecal adenocarcinoma (HCT-8) cells were grown for 48 hr on 13-mm cover slips in 24-well microtiter plates and infected with bleach-treated C. parvum oocysts. Plates were centrifuged at 228 g for 10 min and incubated at 37 C for 5, 12, 18, 24, and 48 hr. Foci of infection were stained by immunofluorescence and enumerated using epifluorescent microscopy. Results were compared to noncentrifuged controls. Foci in centrifuged samples could be enumerated after 18 hr. According to most probable number (MPN) analysis, the number of infectious oocysts estimated at 48 hr (13,326 infectious oocysts) was reached by 18 hr in centrifuged samples. After 48 hr, there was no significant difference (P < 0.05) between centrifuged and noncentrifuged samples enumerated by number of foci or the MPN of infectious oocysts. Centrifugation may expedite detection during C. parvum infectivity assays. Furthermore, multiwell plate formats are more cost effective than traditional chamber slides.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".