You are on page 1of 6

Contract # 582-0-80121/ Work Order # 582-0-80121-08 –Final Report

APPENDIX D SAMPLE BST PRINTOUTS AND RESULTS

4

.

6 47.2 45.6 33.0 30. RCC – Rate of correct classification 1 .2 34.4 37. 3.7 11.4 41.0 39. Abbreviations: ARCC – Average Rate of Correct Classification. dog vs.Contract # 582-0-80121/ Work Order # 582-0-80121-08 –Final Report APPENDIX D BACTERIA SOURCE TRACKING RESULTS USING 6-WAY ANALYSIS (bird vs. Non-human All WilksAntibiotic lambda (stepwise) 36.9 35.0 34.2 37.9 35.6 30.2 48.8 20. human) LIBRARY ISOLATES Table D-1 Summary Table Of Initial Library (2004) .0 38.6 45. bat vs.1 25.5 42.2 37.2 37. Human-P = human isolates from portable toilets only 2. Human-S=isolates from sewage line only.4 36. Cow Vs. Human P vs.1 37.6 38.3 34. 4. Bat Vs. Horse Vs.5 31.3 37. % ARCC Bird Cow Dog Horse Bat Human Human-S Human-P Cross-val. Human).5 45.1 34.5 39. Non-human All WilksAntibiotic lambda (stepwise) 36. ARCC Human vs.9 16. Nonhuman All WilksAntibiotic lambda (stepwise) 38.4 34.8 31.2 25. cow vs.9 41.7 Notes: 1.2 Human S vs.5 35. Wilks-lambda (Stepwise) indicates that a stepwise method was used in which the program may remove some antibiotics from the analysis if they do not contribute to the classifications.3 34.3 Human P only vs. horse vs.4 35. All antibiotic indicates the analysis was conducted using all the antibiotics.8 36.Percent ARCC And RCC For Six-Way Classifications (Bird Vs. 5. Dog Vs.9 33.6 46.2 16.3 39.9 38.5 45.0 43.

9 94. Results of cross-validation (also known as resubstitution analysis or leave-one-out method) showed only a slightly reduced ARCC for the ARP while for the CSU the difference was greater.3 70.8 55. 2 .1 35.8 35.0 50.7 44.2 62.7 35.4 59. 20 for ARP).0 ARP+CSU HS 2004 HS 2005 and 2005 only 67.6 38. however there was a lower level of correct classification for the animals than the combined database. Use of the CSU data alone also provided a high level of correct classification for human.2 93.9 Abbreviations: ARP – antibiotic resistance profiles.0 CSU only HS 2004 HS 2005 and 2005 only 62.2 59.9 57. ARCC ARP only HS 2004 HS 2005 and 2005 only 40.7 65.5 52.4 59.2 44.0 45. HS – Human/Sewage Note: Using the ARP+CSU combined database with the 2005 Human/Sewage isolates only. Between The Human/Sewage Isolates Collected Only In 2005 And The Human/Sewage Isolates Collected in Both 2004 and 2005.Contract # 582-0-80121/ Work Order # 582-0-80121-08 –Final Report Table D-2 Comparison of Discriminant Analysis Results Of The Revised Library Database Using ARP.7% of the human/sewage isolates were classified correctly.2 74.2 64.0 61.0 68.7 56.4 63.3 74. CSU And A Combination Of All Data For Six-Way Analysis.6 41. 94.5 65.9 72.4 40. This is partially an effect of the number of variables in the database (95 for CSU.4 67. 115 for combined ARP/CSU cf.2 71.7 61.6 72. % Correct classification ARCC Human Non human Bird Cow Dog Horse Bat Cross-val.3 41.3 62.3 40.2 49.2 52.4 56. CSU – carbon source utilization.5 62.5 41.7 68.5 56.7 59.

There were a limited number of isolates for each water/sediment sample so small differences in percent may only reflect a difference of one or two isolates. Six-way classifications found relatively similar proportions of human source isolates as the two-way analysis. (Table D-3. For example. It should be noted that Discriminant Analysis identifies a source for each isolate so isolates from sources other than those included in the library will identify as one of those in the library. 3 .Contract # 582-0-80121/ Work Order # 582-0-80121-08 –Final Report UNKNOWN SAMPLE ISOLATES Unknown source sample isolates were analyzed using by six-way classification using the 2005 human/sewage ARA + CSU library as this provided the highest RCCs for the six-way classification. Figures D-1 to D-18) Isolates identified as other animal sources varied by sample. the lack of wildlife in the library will result in any wildlife isolates being classified perhaps as bird or bat.

2 17.2 37.4 15 6.8 2.7 6.5 0 10.4 41.9 5 10.4 23.3 21.3 42.8 9.3 5.2 5.7 8.2 6.1 2 42. Bird.5 3.9 18.7 2.7 30 21.8 11 Water 67.3 27.3 20.9 7.3 17.9 5.5 2.5 1.9 9.9 21. Date received Sample ID Matrix Human Bird / Sewage 17.1 10.3 10.2 13.4 3.4 4.9 24.3 5 Water 51.9 18.8 28.3 10.6 20.2 13.5 24.2 52.3 31.6 3 13.2 8.8 10.1 15.8 *as described on chain of custody forms received from UH with the samples 4 .1 8.9 59.5 18.8 5.6 8.8 17 37 10.4 18.8 21.9 43.6 10.6 18.2 7.4 6.8 11.2 1.7 3.1 4. Cow.5 18.1 15.6 33. Horse or Dog identified using the library including the 2005 sewage only.2 6.9 21.3 3.4 15.7 15.2 9.9 0 14.9 12.9 20.1 3.1 24.3 2 18.2 5 31.Contract # 582-0-80121/ Work Order # 582-0-80121-08 –Final Report Table D-3 Six-way percent classification of unknown source isolates from each sample as Human (Sewage).8 0 3.1 16.6 20.1 58.5 4. Bat.1 %Isolates Cow Horse Dog Bat 8/3/2004 (Dry Weather) 1 2 3 7 3/16/2005 (Dry Weather) 4 5 9 10 7 8 9 10 11 4/26/2005 (Wet Weather) 5/17/2005 (Dry Weather) 7/13/2005 (Wet Weather) 7/14/2005 (Wet Weather) Water Sediment Water Sediment Water Sediment Water Sediment Water Water Sediment Water Water Water Water Water Water Sediment 6.8 8.9 2 8.8 21.1 15 35 18.5 17 77.3 6.8 74.8 3.3 7.5 3.9 10.2 7.6 15.9 5.