Subspecies typing of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in aquatic products with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess subspecies typing of Vibrio parahaemolyticus strains from aquatic products with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis(PEGE).Methods A total of 80 selected isolates obtained from aquatic products were characterized with PFGE method.Genomic DNA was digested with restriction endonucleases NotI and SfiI.Results The isolates were grouped into 68 PFGE patterns by NotI and SfiI.Moreover,there were 70 PFGE patterns after compared with the results of the two restriction enzymes.The discrimination power of NotI was 78.8% and that of SfiI was 76.3%.Fourteen strains were from Canada four strain groups according to the Dice coefficient of 100%,thereinto,the Dice coefficient of four strains was 91.8% and the Dice coefficient of ten strains was 93.3%.Three strains form Norway and two strains from New Zealand belonged to 2 groups,with the Dice coefficient of 100%.There were no other same strains detected.Conclusion The results indicate that PFGE with both NotI and SfiI could be used in discriminant analysis for Vibrio parahaemolyticus,but NotI is more effective.The clustering analysis showes a clear disagreement among the strains and their sources.Furthermore,the strains with virulence genes are included in the same or contiguous clusters.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".