MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410783906 · doi:10.3390/toxins17060267

The Effect of Mitomycin C on Induction of Shiga Toxin Production in Clinical STEC Isolates

2025· article· en· W4410783906 on OpenAlexafffund
Surangi H. Thilakarathna, Brendon Parsons, Linda Chui

Bibliographic record

VenueToxins · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Precision LaboratoriesAlberta Health Services
KeywordsShiga toxinMitomycin CToxinMicrobiologyBiologyShiga-like toxinEscherichia coliGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early determination of the Shiga toxin type of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is crucial for guiding STEC-infected patients for proper and timely treatment and patient care. Most diagnostic microbiology laboratories rely on PCR assays to detect the presence of stx1 and/or stx2 and enzymatic immunoassays (EIA) to detect the presence of the Shiga toxins 1 and/or 2 in STEC-positive stool samples. Occasionally, the stool samples test positive for STEC by PCR assays but test negative for the presence of Shiga toxins. Insufficient toxin production under laboratory conditions is the main culprit of this discordance. To test whether EIA-based STEC detection could be improved, various clinical STEC strains were treated with mitomycin C, which is a commonly used inducer of Shiga toxin production. A dose-dependent increase in Shiga toxin production, in response to mitomycin C doses of up to 500 ng/mL, was observed without any bactericidal effects. Depending on the serotype, 5–50 times more Shiga toxin 2 was produced than Shiga toxin 1. Shiga toxin production was not induced by the mitomycin C treatment in certain STEC serotypes carrying the toxin subtypes stx1a, stx2a, 2b, 2f, or 2h. This diversity in toxin production indicates that other factors may determine toxin expression in certain STEC strains, which warrant further exploration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxinsSame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207