Prevalence and mechanisms of azole resistance in clinical isolates of Aspergillus section Fumigati species in a Canadian tertiary care centre, 2000 to 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Azole resistance among Aspergillus fumigatus isolates is a growing concern worldwide. Induction of mutations during azole therapy, environment-acquired mutations caused by azole fungicides and intrinsic resistance of cryptic Fumigati species all contribute to the burden of resistance. However, there is a lack of data in Canada on this emerging threat. METHODS: To gain insights into the magnitude and mechanisms of resistance, a 14 year collection of Aspergillus section Fumigati comprising 999 isolates from 807 patients at a Montreal hospital was screened for azole resistance, and resistance mechanisms were investigated with the combined use of genome sequencing, 3D modelling and phenotypic efflux pump assays. RESULTS: Overall azole resistance was low (4/807 patients; 0.5%). A single azole-resistant A. fumigatus sensu stricto strain, isolated from a patient with pulmonary aspergillosis, displayed efflux-pump-mediated resistance. Three patients were colonized or infected with azole-resistant cryptic Fumigati species (one Aspergillus thermomutatus, one Aspergillus lentulus and one Aspergillus turcosus). Evidence is presented that azole resistance is efflux-pump-mediated in the A. turcosus isolate, but not in the A. lentulus and A. thermomutatus isolates. CONCLUSIONS: Azole resistance is rare in our geographic area and currently driven by cryptic Fumigati species. Continued surveillance of emergence of resistance is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".