Molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 on Ontario swine farms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to examine antimicrobial resistances, plasmid profiles, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns of 80 Salmonella Typhimurium (including var. Copenhagen) DT104 strains (including DT104a and DT104b) recovered from pig and environmental fecal samples on 17 swine farms in Ontario. No resistance was observed to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, apramycin, carbadox, cephalothin, ceftriaxone, ceftiofur, cefoxitin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, trimethoprim, and tobramycin. However, the isolates exhibited resistance against 4 to 10 antimicrobials with the most frequent resistance being to sulfonamides (Su), ampicillin (A), streptomycin (S), spectinomycin (Sp), chloramphenicol (C), tetracycline (T), and florfenicol (F). Thirteen distinct resistance patterns were determined but 88% of isolates shared the typical resistance pattern “ACSpSSuT.” Twelve different plasmid profiles were observed; the 62 MDa virulence-associated plasmid was detected in 95% of the isolates. The 2.1 MDa plasmid was the second most frequent one, which was harbored by 65% isolates. The isolates were classified into 23 distinct genotypes by PFGE-SpeI + BlnI when difference in at least one fragment was defined as a distinct genotype. In total, 39 distinct “types” were observed when defining a “type” based on the combination of antimicrobial resistance, plasmid pattern, and PFGE-SpeI + BlnI for each isolate. The highest diversity was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.96) for the “type” described above followed by 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.93) for PFGE-SpeI + BlnI. The diversity of DT104 isolates indicates there might be multiple sources for this microorganism on swine farms. This knowledge might be used to track these sources, as well as to study the extent of human salmonellosis attributed to pork compared to food products derived from other food-producing animals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".