Antibacterial and Antioxidant Activity of Extracts from Selected Probiotic Bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probiotic extracts can potentially be used as bio-preservatives and in reduction of oxidative stress. The study investigated the antibacterial and antioxidant activity of methanol extracts from freeze-dried cells of probiotic Lactobacillus strains identified using molecular techniques. The quantitative microplate method, which employed p-iodonitrotetrazolium (INT) and the method by Brand-Williams et al. (1995) were employed to investigate quantitatively the antibacterial and the antioxidant activity, respectively, of probiotic extracts. The MIC values extracts from most probiotic strains, tested against indicator bacterial pathogens, were in the range of 1.25 – 5 mg/mL while that of Lb. casei strain B and Lc. lactis subsp lactis strain X was at least 20 mg/mL after 24 h of incubation at 37°C. At the highest extract concentration of 20 mg/mL used in the study, Lb. acidophilus, Lb. rhamnosus and Lb. casei strains had 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) scavenging activities of 77.9 - 86.1%, 45.7 - 86.4% and 36.9 – 45.8% respectively. Quantitative antibacterial and antioxidant activities of methanol extracts from freeze-dried cells of probiotic Lactobacillus strains was determined for the first time.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".