Identification of streptococci isolated from various sources by determination of<i>cfb</i>gene and other CAMP-factor genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, the CAMP-factor (cfb) gene of streptococci of serological group B (Streptococcus agalactiae) and the CAMP-factor (cfu) gene of S. uberis could be amplified by polymerase chain reaction. A cfb specific amplicon could be observed for all 128 phenotypically CAMP-positive S. agalactiae, for the phenotypically CAMP-negative S. agalactiae strain 74-360, and for 2 S. difficile reference strains. A cfu specific amplicon could be observed for all 7 phenotypically CAMP-positive S. uberis. Four S. agalactiae strains isolated from 4 cows with mastitis appeared to be phenotypically CAMP-negative and negative in the cfb gene PCR. The CAMP-positive and CAMP-negative isolates, including both S. difficile, could be identified as S. agalactiae by amplification of a S. agalactiae specific part of the V2 region of the 16S rRNA and a species-specific part of the 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer region. Amplification of an internal fragment of the cfb gene with a reduced annealing temperature yielded positive reactions not only for CAMP-positive S. agalactiae, but also for phenotypically CAMP-positive S. pyogenes (n = 4), S. canis (n = 28), and S. uberis (n = 7), indicating a close relation of the CAMP genes of these 4 species. The relation could be further demonstrated by sequencing the internal fragment of the CAMP-factor (cfg) gene of S. canis and comparing the sequence with those of S. agalactiae, S. pyogenes, and S. uberis.Key words: CAMP factor, cfb, cfu, S. canis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".