MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210258906 · doi:10.1071/rd21233

In vitro transmission of Chlamydia using naturally infected koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) semen

2022· article· en· W4210258906 on OpenAlexaff
Lyndal Hulse, Kenneth W. Beagley, Rebecca Larkin, Stephen D. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhascolarctos cinereusSemenBiologyChlamydiaVirologySexual transmissionIn vitroMicrobiologyImmunologyMedicinePopulationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transmission of Chlamydia pecorum infection has generally been assumed to be via the urogenital route and in an attempt to confirm this we investigated an in vitro method of Chlamydia infection using naturally infected koala semen to inoculate a cell line and attempt to estimate C. pecorum infectious load. A total of 57% of 122 koala semen samples had low C. pecorum copy number or no burden, while 18% of semen samples contained >10000 inclusion-forming units/mL, as determined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. In vitro inoculation of a McCoy cell line resulted in successful infection from 4% of semen samples where C. pecorum burden was >105 inclusion-forming units/mL. Our preliminary study suggests that transmission of C. pecorum infectious dose may be restricted to peak bacterial shedding in semen associated with recent infection. Here, we report venereal transmission of C. pecorum in koala semen is possible; however, we speculate that antimicrobial factors and innate immune function receptors associated with semen may inhibit chlamydial growth. These mechanisms have yet to be reported in marsupial semen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207