Systematic Evaluation of Whole-Genome Sequencing Based Prediction of Antimicrobial Resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Campylobacter spp. is a global concern. This study evaluated the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to predict AMR in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli. A panel of 271 isolates recovered from Canadian poultry was used to compare AMR genotype to antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results (azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin, tetracycline, florfenicol, nalidixic acid, telithromycin, and clindamycin). The presence of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) was determined for each isolate using five computational approaches to evaluate the effect of: ARG screening software, input data (i.e., raw reads, draft genome assemblies), genome coverage and genome assembly software. Overall, concordance between the genotype and phenotype was influenced by the computational pipelines, level of genome coverage and the type of ARG but not by input data. For example, three of the pipelines showed a 99% agreement between detection of a tet(O) gene and tetracycline resistance, whereas agreement between the detection of tet(O) and TET resistance was 98 and 93% for two pipelines. Overall, higher levels of genome coverage were needed to reliably detect some ARGs; for example, at 15X coverage a tet(O) gene was detected in >70% of the genomes, compared to <60% of the genomes for bla(OXA). No genes associated with florfenicol or gentamicin resistance were found in the set of strains included in this study, consistent with AST results. Macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance was associated 100% with mutations in the 23S rRNA (A2075G) and gyrA (T86I) genes, respectively. A lower association between a A2075G 23S rRNA gene mutation and resistance to clindamycin and telithromycin (92.8 and 78.6%, respectively) was found. While WGS is an effective approach to predicting AMR in Campylobacter, this study demonstrated the impact that computational pipelines, genome coverage and the genes can have on the reliable identification of an AMR genotype.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".