Phenotypic and Genotypic Comparison of Epidemic and Non-Epidemic Strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Individuals with Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemic strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa have been found worldwide among the cystic fibrosis (CF) patient population. Using pulse-field gel electrophoresis, the Prairie Epidemic Strain (PES) has recently been found in one-third of patients attending the Calgary Adult CF Clinic in Canada. Using multi-locus sequence typing, PES isolates from unrelated patients were found to consistently have ST192. Though most patients acquired PES prior to enrolling in the clinic, some patients were observed to experience strain replacement upon transitioning to the clinic whereby local non-epidemic P. aeruginosa isolates were displaced by PES. Here we genotypically and phenotypically compared PES to other P. aeruginosa epidemic strains (OES) found around the world as well as local non-epidemic CF P. aeruginosa isolates in order to characterize PES. Since some epidemic strains are associated with worse clinical outcomes, we assessed the pathogenic potential of PES to determine if these isolates are virulent, shared properties with OES, and if its phenotypic properties may offer a competitive advantage in displacing local non-epidemic isolates during strain replacement. As such, we conducted a comparative analysis using fourteen phenotypic traits, including virulence factor production, biofilm formation, planktonic growth, mucoidy, and antibiotic susceptibility to characterize PES, OES, and local non-epidemic isolates. We observed that PES and OES could be differentiated from local non-epidemic isolates based on biofilm growth with PES isolates being more mucoid. Pairwise comparisons indicated that PES produced significantly higher levels of proteases and formed better biofilms than OES but were more susceptible to antibiotic treatment. Amongst five patients experiencing strain replacement, we found that super-infecting PES produced lower levels of proteases and elastases but were more resistant to antibiotics compared to the displaced non-epidemic isolates. This comparative analysis is the first to be completed on a large scale between groups of epidemic and non-epidemic CF P. aeruginosa isolates.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".