Serologic Response of Gnotobiotic Pigs Challenged withActinobacillus Pleuropneumoniae Serotype 5 or Actinobacillus SuisField Isolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three studies, a pilot study with conventional early-weaned pigs and two studies with gnotobiotic pigs were completed. The piolot study indicated that conventional pigs could be challeneged with at least 107 colony forming units (cfu) or Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia (APP) or Actinobacillus suis (A suis) without developing clinical signs. No serological response was detected in these pigs. In the first gnotobiotic study, nine pigs were used: 3 control, 3 APP or 3 A. suis. The two groups of challened pigs failed to respond clinically or serologically to the intial callenege of 106 cfu or either APP or A. suis but the APP pigs did respond clinically and serologically to a second challenge of 107 cfu. A second study with twenty gnotobiotic pigs was completed. Eight pigs were assigned to the Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae (APP) serotype 5 group; eight pigs were assigned to the Actinobacillus suis (A. suis) group and 4 pigs were assigned to the control group. Each group of gnotobiotic pigs were challenged with 107 colony forming units (cfu) of either APP or A. suis. In both gnotobiotic studies, serological tests indicated that the hemolysin neutralization test (HNT) specificity was poor as it was unable to discriminate between APP or A. suis infections. The HNT test detected more APP positive animals than any other test and detected APP infected animals one-month post challenge. In the first gnotobiotic study, APP infected pigs were detected at one-two weeks post challenge with the APP5 ELISA developed by the University of Montreal (ELISA-M). ELISA-M was a more sensitive test than the APP5 ELISA developed by Oxford Laboratories (ELISA-O). In the second gnotobiotic study, the ELISA-M and ELISA-O failed to detect any APP 5 infected animals. In both gnotobiotic studies, the complement fixation test failed to detect any animals and was insensitive to APP infections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".