Using whole-genome sequence data to examine the epidemiology of Salmonella, Escherichia coli and associated antimicrobial resistance in raccoons (Procyon lotor), swine manure pits, and soil samples on swine farms in southern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand the contribution of wildlife to the dissemination of Salmonella and antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella and Escherichia coli, we examined whole-genome sequence data from Salmonella and E. coli isolates collected from raccoons (Procyon lotor) and environmental sources on farms in southern Ontario. All Salmonella and phenotypically resistant E. coli collected from raccoons, soil, and manure pits on five swine farms as part of a previous study were included. We assessed for evidence of potential transmission of these organisms between different sources and farms utilizing a combination of population structure assessments (using core-genome multi-locus sequence typing), direct comparisons of multi-drug resistant isolates, and epidemiological modeling of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes and plasmid incompatibility (Inc) types. Univariable logistic regression models were fit to assess the impact of source type, farm location, and sampling year on the occurrence of select resistance genes and Inc types. A total of 159 Salmonella and 96 resistant E. coli isolates were included. A diversity of Salmonella serovars and sequence types were identified, and, in some cases, we found similar or identical Salmonella isolates and resistance genes between raccoons, soil, and swine manure pits. Certain Inc types and resistance genes associated with source type were consistently more likely to be identified in isolates from raccoons than swine manure pits, suggesting that manure pits are not likely a primary source of those particular resistance determinants for raccoons. Overall, our data suggest that transmission of Salmonella and AMR determinants between raccoons and swine manure pits is uncommon, but soil-raccoon transmission appears to be occurring frequently. More comprehensive sampling of farms, and assessment of farms with other livestock species, as well as additional environmental sources (e.g., rivers) may help to further elucidate the movement of resistance genes between these various sources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".