Identification and differentiation of Taylorella equigenitalis and Taylorella asinigenitalis by lipopolysaccharide O-antigen serology using monoclonal antibodies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lipopolysaccharides (LPSs) from Taylorella equigenitalis, the causative agent of contagious equine metritis, and T. asinigenitalis were compared by sodium dodecyl sulphate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). Lipopolysaccharide profiles of 11 T. equigenitalis strains were similar, but different from the profiles of 3 T. asinigenitalis strains, and the profiles of 2 T. asinigenitalis strains were similar to each other. The serological specificities of the LPSs from these 14 strains were examined by immunoblotting and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) to the LPSs of the T. equigenitalis and T. asinigenitalis type strains and T. asinigenitalis strain 2329-98. A MAb to T. equigenitalis LPS O-polysaccharide (O-PS) (M2560) reacted with LPSs from all T. equigenitalis strains but did not react with LPSs from the 3 T. asinigenitalis strains or with 43 non-Taylorella bacteria. Three MAbs to the T. asinigenitalis type strain LPS O-PS or core epitopes (M2974, M2982, M3000) reacted with the homologous strain and T. asinigenitalis strain Bd 3751/05, but not with any of the other bacteria. Five MAbs to T. asinigenitalis 2329-98 LPS O-PS or core epitopes (M2904, M2907, M2910, M2923, M2929) reacted only with this strain. Proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectra of the O-PSs of the type strains of T. equigenitalis and T. asinigenitalis provided fingerprint identification and differentiation of these 2 organisms. The serological results were consistent with our previous finding that the O-antigen of the type strain of T. equigenitalis, being a linear polymer of disaccharide repeating [-->4)-alpha-L-GulpNAc3NAcA-(1-->4)-beta-D-ManpNAc3NAcA-(1-->] units, differs from that of the T. asinigenitalis O-antigen polymer that is composed of repeating [-->3)-beta-D-QuipNAc4NAc-(1-->3)-beta-D-GlcpNAmA-(1-->] units. Lipopolysaccharide O-PS could be a specific marker for identification and differentiation of T. equigenitalis and T. asinigenitalis, and provide the basis for the development of specific detection assays for T. equigenitalis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".