Using clotted, pelleted blood samples for direct molecular detection of Bartonella spp. in small mammal wildlife surveillance studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bartonella are emerging bacterial zoonotic pathogens. Utilization of clotted blood samples for surveillance of these bacteria in wildlife has begun to supersede the use of tissues; however, the efficacy of these samples has not been fully investigated. Our objective was to compare the efficacy of spleen and blood samples for DNA extraction and direct detection of Bartonella spp. via qPCR. In addition, we present a protocol for improved DNA extraction from clotted, pelleted (i.e., centrifuged) blood samples obtained from wild small mammals. RESULTS: DNA concentrations from kit-extracted blood clot samples were low and A260/A280 absorbance ratios indicated high impurity. Kit-based DNA extraction of spleen samples was efficient and produced ample DNA concentrations of good quality. We developed an in-house extraction method for the blood clots which resulted in apposite DNA quality when compared to spleen samples extracted via MagMAX DNA Ultra 2.0 kit. We detected Bartonella in 9/30 (30.0%) kit-extracted spleen DNA samples and 11/30 (36.7%) in-house-extracted blood clot samples using PCR. Our results suggest that kit-based methods may be less suitable for DNA extraction from blood clots, and that blood clot samples may be superior to tissues for Bartonella detection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".