MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206211830 · doi:10.3390/jof7100860

Genetic Analyses of Amphotericin B Susceptibility in Aspergillus fumigatus

2021· article· en· W3206211830 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yuying Fan, Gregory A. Korfanty, Jianping Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fungi · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsAspergillus fumigatusAmphotericin BMicrobiologyBiologyAspergillusAspergillosisFungi imperfectiAntifungalImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aspergillus fumigatus is a ubiquitous saprophytic mold that can cause a range of clinical syndromes, from allergic reactions to invasive infections. Amphotericin B (AMB) is a polyene antifungal drug that has been used to treat a broad range of systemic mycoses since 1958, including as a primary treatment option against invasive aspergillosis in regions with high rates (≥10%) of environmental triazole resistance. However, cases of AMB-resistant A. fumigatus strains have been increasingly documented over the years, and high resistance rates were recently reported in Brazil and Canada. The objective of this study is to identify candidate mutations associated with AMB susceptibility using a genome-wide association analysis of natural strains, and to further investigate a subset of the mutations in their putative associations with differences in AMB minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and in growths at different AMB concentrations through the analysis of progeny from a laboratory genetic cross. Together, our results identified a total of 34 candidate single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with AMB MIC differences—comprising 18 intergenic variants, 14 missense variants, one synonymous variant, and one non-coding transcript variant. Importantly, progeny from the genetic cross allowed us to identify putative SNP–SNP interactions impacting progeny growth at different AMB concentrations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of FungiSame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207