Presence of<i>Qac</i>genes in clinical isolates of methicillin‐resistant and methicillin‐susceptible<i>Staphylococcus pseudintermedius</i>and their impact on chlorhexidine digluconate susceptibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the presence of quaternary ammonium compound (QAC) (resistance genes, qac A/B, smr, qacG, and qacJ, in clinical isolates of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MSSP) and methicillin-resistant S pseudintermedius (MRSP) from dogs and the impact on in vitro chlorhexidine susceptibility. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental in vitro study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Seventy isolates from dogs colonized or infected with MRSP (n = 50) or MSSP (n = 20). METHODS: Agar dilution was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of chlorhexidine digluconate. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect the presence of QAC resistance genes, qacA/B, smr, qacG, and qacJ genes. RESULTS: One or more qac genes were identified in 52 of 70 (74%) isolates. Overall, there was no association between chlorhexidine MIC and the presence of one or more qac genes (P = .85) or the presence of qacA/B (P = .31), smr (P = .72) or qacJ (P = .93) individually. There was an association between qacG and MIC (P = .012), with a median MIC of 1.5 μg/mL for isolates possessing this gene and 1 μg/mL for those not possessing it. CONCLUSION: Quaternary ammonium compound resistance genes were present in MRSP and MSSP isolates. With the exception of qacG, the presence of these genes was not associated with increased MIC. All isolates exhibited MIC 5000 to 80 000 times lower than the concentration recommended for use. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Despite the presence of QAC genes, chlorhexidine digluconate should be effective against MRSP and MSSP if used correctly.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".