Detection of Salmonella Typhi bacteriophages in surface waters as a scalable approach to environmental surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental surveillance, using detection of Salmonella Typhi DNA, has emerged as a potentially useful tool to identify typhoid-endemic settings; however, it is relatively costly and requires molecular diagnostic capacity. We sought to determine whether S. Typhi bacteriophages are abundant in water sources in a typhoid-endemic setting, using low-cost assays. METHODOLOGY: We collected drinking and surface water samples from urban, peri-urban and rural areas in 4 regions of Nepal. We performed a double agar overlay with S. Typhi to assess the presence of bacteriophages. We isolated and tested phages against multiple strains to assess their host range. We performed whole genome sequencing of isolated phages, and generated phylogenies using conserved genes. FINDINGS: S. Typhi-specific bacteriophages were detected in 54.9% (198/361) of river and 6.3% (1/16) drinking water samples from the Kathmandu Valley and Kavrepalanchok. Water samples collected within or downstream of population-dense areas were more likely to be positive (72.6%, 193/266) than those collected upstream from population centers (5.3%, 5/95) (p=0.005). In urban Biratnagar and rural Dolakha, where typhoid incidence is low, only 6.7% (1/15, Biratnagar) and 0% (0/16, Dolakha) river water samples contained phages. All S. Typhi phages were unable to infect other Salmonella and non-Salmonella strains, nor a Vi-knockout S. Typhi strain. Representative strains from S. Typhi lineages were variably susceptible to the isolated phages. Phylogenetic analysis showed that S. Typhi phages belonged to the class Caudoviricetes and clustered in three distinct groups. CONCLUSIONS: S. Typhi bacteriophages were highly abundant in surface waters of typhoid-endemic communities but rarely detected in low typhoid burden communities. Bacteriophages recovered were specific for S. Typhi and required Vi polysaccharide for infection. Screening small volumes of water with simple, low-cost (~$2) plaque assays enables detection of S. Typhi phages and should be further evaluated as a scalable tool for typhoid environmental surveillance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".