Reduction of Salmonella gallinarum in poultry with phage-based interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Salmonella Gallinarum infections (fowl typhoid) cause significant production as well economic losses. We isolated and characterized (viability in simulated gastric fluid and simulated intestinal fluids, host-range, and genomic sequencing) four Salmonella Gallinarum phages to create a phage-based treatment for Salmonella Gallinarum infections in chickens. The phages were distinct based on genomic sequencing and effectively lysed Salmonella Gallinarum strains isolated from diseased chickens in Pakistan. Chicks (7 day-old) were challenged with Salmonella Gallinarum and treated with encapsulated phages or unprotected phages. At 1 and 4 d post-challenge (dpc), cecal Salmonella concentrations of chicks treated with unprotected (4.36 ± 0.20, and 4.02 ± 0.15 log 10 CFU/g, respectively) and encapsulated phages (5.05 ± 0.22, and 3.26 ± 0.62 log 10 CFU/g, respectively) were significantly lower ( P < 0.05) than those of untreated chicks (5.71 ± 0.13, and 4.65 ± 0.08 log 10 CFU/g, respectively). In a second animal trial, chicks were challenged with Salmonella Gallinarum but also treated with mixture (1:1) of encapsulated and unprotected phages. At 4 dpc, concentrations of Salmonella Gallinarum in the ceca of chicks treated with any form of phage were significantly lower than those of untreated chicks. At 7 dpc, however, concentrations of Salmonella Gallinarum in the ceca of chicks treated with the mixture of unprotected and encapsulated phages (2.40 ± 0.55 log 10 CFU/g) were significantly lower ( P < 0.05) than those of chicks in all other treatment groups. Taken together, these data indicate that phage treatment reduces concentrations of Salmonella Gallinarum in experimentally-challenged chickens.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".