Assessing the Biosecurity Risk of Footwear as a Fomite for Transmission of Adventitious Infectious Agents to Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The soles of staff shoes accessing vivaria can become contaminated on urban streets, potentially serving as a source of fomite-mediated transmission of adventitious agents to laboratory rodents. While shoe covers may mitigate this risk, donning them can lead to hand contamination. Staff accessing our vivaria use motor-driven shoe cleaners hundreds of times daily to remove and collect particulates via a vacuum collection system from the top, sole, and sides of shoes instead of shoe covers. Shoe cleaner debris (SCD) and contact media (CM) exposed to SCD from shoe cleaners in 5 vivaria were assessed by PCR for 84 adventitious agents. SCD and CM samples tested positive for 33 and 37 agents, respectively, and a combined 39 agents total. To assess SCD infectivity, NSG and Swiss outbred mice were housed for 7 days in direct contact with SCD and oronasally inoculated with a suspension created from SCD collected from each of the 5 vivaria. Mice were tested by PCR and serology 3-, 7-, 14- and 63-days post-inoculation. All mice remained healthy until the study’s end and tested negative for all agents found in SCD/CM except murine astrovirus 1, Staphyloccocus xylosus and Candidatus Savagella , agents known to be enzootic in the experimental mouse source colony. In a follow-up study, the soles of 27 staff street shoes were directly sampled using CM. Half of CM was used for PCR, while the other half was added as bedding material to a cage containing NSG and Swiss outbred mice. While CM tested positive for 11 agents, all mice were healthy 63 days post-exposure and again positive for only enzootic agents. These results suggest that shoe debris might not be a significant biosecurity risk to laboratory mice, questioning the need for shoe covers or cleaners when entering experimental barrier vivaria.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".