Predominant bacterial species in subgingival plaque in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The dog has been used extensively for experimental and microbiological studies on periodontitis and peri-implantitis without detailed knowledge about the predominant flora of the subgingival plaque. This study was designed to evaluate the predominant cultivable bacterial species in dogs and compare them phenotypically and genotypically with corresponding human species. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four subgingival samples were taken from two upper premolars in each of six Labrador retrievers. The samples from each dog were processed for anaerobic culture. From the samples of each dog, the five or six predominating bacteria based on colony morphology were selected and pure cultured. Each of the strains was characterized by Gram stain, anaerobic/aerobic growth and API-ZYM test. Eighteen strains showing clear-cut phenotypic differences were further classified based on DNA sequencing technology. Cross-reactions of DNA probes from human and dog strains were also tested against a panel of both human and dog bacterial species. RESULTS: Thirty-one strains in the dogs were isolated and characterized. They represented 21 different species, of which six belonged to the genus Porphyromonas. No species was found consistently in the predominant flora of all six dogs. Porphyromonas crevioricanis and Fusobacterium canifelinum were the two most prevalent species in predominant flora in dogs. DNA probes from human and dog species cross-reacted to some extent with related strains from humans and dogs; however, distinct exceptions were found. CONCLUSION: The predominant cultural subgingival flora in dogs shows great similarities with the subgingival bacteria from humans at the genus level, but distinct differences at the species level; however, a genetic relatedness could be disclosed for most strains investigated.
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) | 0.000 | 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".