MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963912646 · doi:10.1079/bjn2001402

Viability and dose–response studies on the effects of the immunoenhancing lactic acid bacterium<i>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</i>in mice

2001· article· en· W1963912646 on OpenAlexfundno aff
H.S. Gill, Kay J. Rutherfurd

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal Of Nutrition · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManitoba Health Research Council
KeywordsLactobacillus rhamnosusImmune systemMicrobiologyImmunityBacteriaLactic acidBiologyInnate immune systemLactobacillusImmunologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have indicated that the lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 can enhance immune function in mice, following oral delivery. However, the influence of bacterial cell viability on immunoenhancement, and the optimum dose of HN001 required for this effect, have not been determined. In the present study, both live and heat-killed preparations of L. rhamnosus HN001 were shown to enhance the phagocytic activity of blood and peritoneal leucocytes in mice, at a dose of 109 micro-organisms daily. In contrast, only live HN001 enhanced gut mucosal antibody responses to cholera toxin vaccine. Feeding mice with 107 viable HN001/d for 14 d was shown to enhance the phagocytic capacity of blood leucocytes, with incremental enhancement observed at 109 and 1011 daily doses. In contrast, a minimum dose of 109 viable HN001/d was required to enhance the phagocytic activity of peritoneal leucocytes, and no further increment was observed with 1011 daily. This study demonstrates that L. rhamnosus HN001 exhibits dose-dependent effects on the phagocytic defence system of mice, and suggests that while the innate cellular immune system is responsive to killed forms of food-borne bacteria, specific gut mucosal immunity may only be stimulated by live forms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal Of NutritionSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207