Plasmid evolution in carbapenemase‐producing <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i>: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) have been listed by the WHO as high‐priority pathogens owing to their high association with mortalities and morbidities. Resistance to multiple β‐lactams complicates effective clinical management of CRE infections. Using plasmid typing methods, a wide distribution of plasmid replicon groups has been reported in CREs around the world, including IncF, N, X, A/C, L/M, R, P, H, I, and W. We performed a literature search for English research papers, published between 2013 and 2018, reporting on plasmid‐mediated carbapenem resistance. A rise in both carbapenemase types and associated plasmid replicon groups was seen, with China, Canada, and the United States recording a higher increase than other countries. blaKPC was the most prevalent, except in Angola and the Czech Republic, where OXA‐181 (n = 50, 88%) and OXA‐48–like (n = 24, 44%) carbapenemases were most prevalent, respectively; blaKPC‐2/3 accounted for 70% (n = 956) of all reported carbapenemases. IncF plasmids were found to be responsible for disseminating different antibiotic resistance genes worldwide, accounting for almost 40% (n = 254) of plasmid‐borne carbapenemases. blaCTX‐M, blaTEM, blaSHV, blaOXA‐1/9, qnr, and aac‐(6′)‐lb were mostly detected concurrently with carbapenemases. Most reported plasmids were conjugative but not present in multiple countries or species, suggesting limited interspecies and interboundary transmission of a common plasmid. A major limitation to effective characterization of plasmid evolution was the use of PCR‐based instead of whole‐plasmid sequencing–based plasmid typing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".