Aspergillosis in a colony of Humboldt penguins (<i>Spheniscus humboldti</i>) under managed care: a clinical and environmental investigation in a French zoological park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspergillosis is pervasive in bird populations, especially those under human care. Its management can be critically impacted by exposure to high levels of conidia and by resistance to azole drugs. The fungal contamination in the environment of a Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) group, housed in a French zoological park next to numerous large crop fields, was assessed through three serial sessions of surface sampling in nests, in 2018-20: all isolates were counted and characterized by sequencing. When identified as Aspergillus fumigatus, they were systematically screened for resistance mutations in the cyp51A gene and tested for minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) determination. At the same time, the clinical incidence of aspergillosis was evaluated in the penguin population by the means of systematic necropsy and mycological investigations. A microsatellite-based analysis tracked the circulation of A. fumigatus strains. Environmental investigations highlighted the substantial increase of the fungal load during the summer season (>12-fold vs. the other timepoints) and a large overrepresentation of species belonging to the Aspergillus section Fumigati, ranging from 22.7 to 94.6% relative prevalence. Only one cryptic species was detected (A. nishimurae), and one isolate exhibited G138S resistance mutation with elevated MICs. The overall incidence of aspergillosis was measured at ∼3.4% case-years, and mostly in juveniles. The analysis of microsatellite polymorphism revealed a high level of genetic diversity among A. fumigatus clinical isolates. In contrast, one environmental strain appeared largely overrepresented during the summer sampling session. In all, the rural location of the zoo did not influence the emergence of resistant strains.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".