Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance Using Proteomics and the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), especially multidrug resistance, is one of the most serious global threats facing public health. The authors proof‐of‐concept study assessing the suitability of shotgun proteomics as an additional approach to whole‐genome sequencing (WGS) for detecting AMR determinants. Experimental Design Previously published shotgun proteomics and WGS data on four isolates of Campylobacter jejuni are used to perform AMR detection by searching the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database, and their detection ability relative to genomics screening and traditional phenotypic testing measured by minimum inhibitory concentration is assessed. Results Both genomic and proteomic approaches identify the wild‐type and variant molecular determinants responsible for resistance to tetracycline and ciprofloxacin, in agreement with phenotypic testing. In contrast, the genomic method identifies the presence of the β‐lactamase gene, blaOXA‐61, in three isolates. However, its corresponding protein product is detected in only a single isolate, consistent with results obtained from phenotypic testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".