MP03-09 THE EFFECT OF AN <i>ESCHERICHIA COLI</i> BACTERIAL URINARY INFECTION ISOLATE AND CIPROFLOXACIN ON CALCIUM UROLITHIASIS IN A <i>DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER</i> MODEL
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Basic Research & Pathophysiology I (MP03)1 Apr 2019MP03-09 THE EFFECT OF AN ESCHERICHIA COLI BACTERIAL URINARY INFECTION ISOLATE AND CIPROFLOXACIN ON CALCIUM UROLITHIASIS IN A DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER MODEL Jennifer Bjazevic*, Kaitlin F. Al, Jaswanth Gorla, Hassan Razvi, and Jeremy P. Burton Jennifer Bjazevic*Jennifer Bjazevic* More articles by this author , Kaitlin F. AlKaitlin F. Al More articles by this author , Jaswanth GorlaJaswanth Gorla More articles by this author , Hassan RazviHassan Razvi More articles by this author , and Jeremy P. BurtonJeremy P. Burton More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000554941.03582.7eAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Exposure to both urinary bacteria and antibiotics may impact the formation of calcium-based stone disease. Prior epidemiological studies have shown a strong association between the development of stone disease and a history of culture-proven urinary tract infections treated with antibiotics. We aimed to further evaluate the potential effect of a non-urease producing bacteria isolate from a urinary tract infection, and treatment with the antibiotic ciprofloxacin, on the formation of calcium oxalate stones utilizing a Drosophila melanogaster (DM) fly model. METHODS: DM flies were treated with a combination of a non-urease producing strain of Escherichia coli UTI89 and 0.1% sodium oxalate food for the duration of the 14-day assay (n=30 per group). Treatment with ciprofloxacin occurred on day 5-7 of the assay at a sub-minimum inhibitory concentration of 0.2 μg/mL. DM control groups without the addition of UTI89 or ciprofloxacin were included for comparison. Inoculation with UTI89 was confirmed by culturing pulverized flies on lysogeny broth agar plates on days 1-5. Stone burden was assessed with a survival curve analysis and measured pixel intensity of dissected Malpighian tubules under birefringent microscopy. RESULTS: UTI89 was cultured at a minimum concentration of 3x103 colony forming units/fly for up to three days post exposure in treated flies. There was a trend towards decreased survival in oxalate food treated flies for days 15-35; however, UTI89 treatment did not affect fly survival. Preliminary results suggest that at day 7 exposure to UTI89 increased calcium oxalate crystal production in Malpighian tubules (p=0.001), and treatment with ciprofloxacin attenuated this effect (p=0.012, Figure 1). Similar trends were observed at day 14; however, these results did not reach statistical significance (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings further suggest that exposure to both a non-urease producing E. coli and ciprofloxacin may impact calcium oxalate stone formation in a DM urolithiasis model. Further investigation is required in order to confirm these results and delineate the potential mechanisms by which urinary pathogens and antibiotics may affect calcium-based stone formation. Source of Funding: AUA Urology Care Foundation Research Scholar Award London, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e23-e24 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jennifer Bjazevic* More articles by this author Kaitlin F. Al More articles by this author Jaswanth Gorla More articles by this author Hassan Razvi More articles by this author Jeremy P. Burton More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».