MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386084007 · doi:10.3201/eid2909.230559

<i>Anaplasma bovis</i>–Like Infections in Humans, United States, 2015–2017

2023· article· en· W4386084007 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandor E. Karpathy, Luke C. Kingry, Bobbi S. Pritt, Jonathan Berry, Neil B. Chilton, Shaun J. Dergousoff, Roberto Cortinas, Sarah W. Sheldon, Stephanie Oatman, Melissa Anacker, Jeannine M. Petersen, Christopher D. Paddock

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging infectious diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGovernment of CanadaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionMinnesota Department of HealthMayo Clinic
KeywordsAnaplasmaBiologyDermacentor variabilisTick-borne diseaseMicrobiologyBabesia bovisVirologyBabesiaIxodidaeTick

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he genus Anaplasma includes several species of tickborne, zoonotic pathogens of global importance.Three recognized species (Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Anaplasma ovis, and Anaplasma bovis) and one provisionally named species (Anaplasma capra) are associated with moderately severe to severe disease in humans (1).Human infections with A. bovis, a pathogen first identified in monocytes of cattle in Algeria in 1936 and subsequently detected in other countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas, were reported from China in 2017 (1-3).In 2015, a targeted metagenomic approach designed to amplify the V1-V2 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA (rrs) gene identified DNA of an A. bovis-like agent in blood specimens from 2 US patients with suspected tickborne illnesses (4).The agent demonstrated 100% identity across a 357bp region of rrs to A. bovis-like sequences amplified from several human-biting Dermacentor tick species in North America ( 4).An additional 2 US patients positive for this same Anaplasma species were identified in 2017 (L.Kingry et al., unpub.data), although the genetic identity of this pathogen remained limited to the same 357-bp sequence of rrs (5-7).To further characterize the phylogenetic position of this novel agent, we evaluated additional sequences to determine the uniqueness of this strain among the expanding global complex of A. bovis-like bacteria. The StudyWe extracted DNA from 100 µL of EDTA-treated whole blood obtained from 4 patients from whom partial rrs sequences of an A. bovis-like agent were identified from a targeted metagenomics assessment of whole blood specimens collected from US patients with suspected tickborne disease (4; L. Kingry et al., unpub.data).DNA extracts containing A. bovis DNA were also available from an adult Dermacentor andersoni tick collected in Saskatchewan Landing Provincial Park in Saskatchewan, Canada, and from 5 adult Dermacentor variabilis ticks collected in Washita County, Oklahoma; Floyd County, Iowa; and Sarpy and Cass Counties, Nebraska, from which partial rrs sequences most similar with A. bovis were amplified previously (5,6).We amplified segments of the rrs, citrate synthase (gltA), and heat shock chaperon (groEL) genes using Taq PCR Master Mix Kit (QIAGEN, https://www.qiagen.com)(Table 1).Each 20-µL primary reaction consisted of 1 µM of each primer, 10 µL Taq Master Mix, 2 µL DNA, and 6 µL molecular-grade water.Secondary reactions (groEL only) consisted of 1 µM of each primer, 10 µL Taq Master Mix, 1 µL primary PCR product, and 7 µL molecular-grade water.We resolved PCR amplicons on a 1% agarose gel in Tris-acetate-EDTA buffer and cut amplicons from the gel and purified using a Wizard SV Gel and PCR Clean-up kit (Promega, https://www.promega.com).We sequenced each purified amplicon (1 µL) bidirectionally Anaplasma bovis-Like Infections in Humans, United States, 2015-2017

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging infectious diseasesSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207