MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2382539013

Subspecies typing of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in aquatic products with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

2012· article· en· W2382539013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huiyuan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of Public Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsed-field gel electrophoresisVibrio parahaemolyticusTypingBiologyRestriction enzymeSubspeciesGel electrophoresisMicrobiologyStrain (injury)GeneticsGeneGenotypeBacteriaEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Journal of Public HealthSame topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207