Inferring the selection window in antimicrobial resistance using deep mutational scanning data and biophysics-based fitness models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mutant-selection window (MSW) hypothesis in antimicrobial resistance implies a range for antimicrobial concentration that promotes selection of single-step resistant mutants. Since the inception and experimental verification, MSW has been at the forefront of strategies to minimize development of antimicrobial resistance (AR). Setting the upper and lower limits of MSW requires an understanding of the dependence of selection coefficient of arising mutations to antimicrobial concentration. In this work, we employed a biophysics-based and experimentally calibrated fitness model to estimate MSW in the case of Ampicillin and Cefotaxime resistance in E.coli TEM-1 beta lactamase. In line with experimental observations, we show that selection is active at very low levels of antimicrobials. Furthermore, we elucidate the dependence of MSW to catalytic efficiency of mutants, fraction of mutants in the population and discuss the role of population genetic parameters such as population size and mutation rate. Altogether, our analysis and formalism provide a predictive model of MSW with direct implications in the design of dosage strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".