Genotyping and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Clostridium perfringens and Clostridioides difficile in Camel Minced Meat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to determine the occurrence, genotypes, and antimicrobial resistance of Clostridium perfringens (C. perfringens) and Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) in camel minced meat samples collected from small butcher shops and supermarkets in Al-Ahsa Governorate, Saudi Arabia. A total of 100 camel minced meat samples were randomly collected from small butcher’s shops (n = 50) and supermarkets (n = 50) in Al-Ahsa Governorate, Saudi Arabia. C. perfringens and C. difficile were isolated and identified using the VITEK-2 compact system and 16S rRNA gene amplification. Genotypes, toxin genes, and antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolates were determined. Moreover, ELISA was used to detect C. perfringens and C. difficile toxins. C. perfringens and C. difficile were isolated from 14% and 4% of the tested minced meat samples, respectively. Out of the 14 C. perfringens isolates, type A (64.3%), type B (7.1%), type C (21.5%), and type D (7.1%) were detected. However, out of the four C. difficile isolates, three (75%) were type A+B+ and one (25%) was type A−B+. None of the C. perfringens or C. difficile toxins were identified using ELISA. C. perfringens and C. difficile isolates exhibited a high rate of resistance to tetracycline (56% and 75%, respectively). However, all isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate. Multidrug resistance was observed in three (21.4%) C. perfringens and one (25%) C. difficile isolates. In conclusion, camel minced meat was contaminated with C. perfringens and C. difficile, which present a potential risk of food poisoning. The majority of the isolates were resistant to at least one antimicrobial, and some isolates were multidrug-resistant. Therefore, food safety standards and frequent inspections of abattoirs, small butcher shops, and supermarkets should be enforced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".