[Typing of Listeria monocytogenes in import and export foods with PFGE].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the molecular type and genetic correlation of Listeria monocytogenes (LMO) isolated from imported and exported foods. METHODS: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) standard method recommended by american PulseNet for typing LMO was applied. The chromosomal DNA of L. monocytogenes was digested by restriction enzyme Asc I and analyzed by PFGE. The PFGE patterns of L. monocytogenes strains isolated from different areas were compared by using BioNumberics software to analyze the similarity between strains. RESULTS: Twenty-four L. monocytogenes strains were grouped into 20 PFGE subtypes by the similarity of PFGE pattern ranged from 44.45% to 100%. Particularly, it was identified that there were three subtype strain groups, each group sharing with the same PFGE pattern, and the similarity reaching 100%: the first group including LMO16 from Canada, LMO18 from America and LMO13 from Denmark, the second group including LMO7 from Denmark and LMO22 from Shunde, and the third group including LMO21 from Guangzhou and LMO8 from Shanxi. CONCLUSION: Generally, much genetic diversity was shown in Listeria monocytogenes isolated from import and export foods, but the correlations among strains are existed to some extent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".