Tolerance mechanisms and molecular epidemiology of reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine digluconate in different species of the <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i> complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare chlorhexidine digluconate and other antibiotics susceptibility of four species of the Acinetobacter baumannii complex, and further investigate the chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG) tolerance mechanisms and molecular epidemic characteristics. Of 889 A. baumannii complex isolates, A. baumannii, A. nosocomialis, A. pittii, and A. seifertii accounted for 84.2%, 10.9%, 3.4%, and 1.5%. Acinetobacter baumannii was generally resistant to all tested antibiotics, while other three species were commonly more susceptible; 92.1% (313/340) CHG-tolerant A. baumannii, 19.6% (19/97) CHG-tolerant A. nosocomialis, 3.3% (1/30) CHG-tolerant A. pittii, and 15.4% (2/13) CHG-tolerant A. seifertii were identified. Furthermore, compared to A. baumannii ATCC 19606, upregulated expression was found in qacEΔ1, fabI, and efflux pump encoding genes in CHG-tolerant A. baumannii, but the expression level of oprD was reduced. Additionally, only the expression level of fabI was increased in the CHG-tolerant A. nosocomialis, and the expression level of adeG was increased in the CHG-tolerant A. pittii and A. seifertii. Furthermore, CHG-tolerant A. baumannii may have a relatively high clonal correlation, the predominant sequence type of which was ST208 (90%, 36/40). It is rather necessary to identify specific species members among the A. baumannii complex for clinical treatment options and antibiotics resistance monitoring.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".