MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Production of conjugated linoleic acid by probiotic<i>Lactobacillus acidophilus</i>La-5

2009· article· en· W1969069078 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Macouzet, B.H. Lee, Normand Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjugated linoleic acidProbioticLactobacillus acidophilusFood scienceFermentationIncubationChemistryBiologyLinoleic acidBacteriaBiochemistryFatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To study the ability of the probiotic culture Lactobacillus acidophilus La-5 to produce conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which is a potent anti-carcinogenic agent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The conversion of linoleic acid to CLA was studied both by fermentation in a synthetic medium and by incubation of washed cells. Accumulation of CLA was monitored by gas chromatography analysis of the biomass and supernatants. While the fermentation conditions applied may not be optimal to observe CLA production in growing La-5 cells, the total CLA surpassed 50% of the original content in the washed cells after 48 h under both aerobic and micro-aerobic conditions. The restriction of oxygen did not increase the yield, but favoured the formation of trans, trans isomers. CONCLUSIONS: The capability of L. acidophilus La-5 to produce CLA is not dependant on the presence of milk fat or anaerobic conditions. Regulation of CLA production in this strain needs to be further investigated to exploit the CLA potential in fermented foods. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Knowledge gained through the conditions on the accumulation of CLA would provide further insight into the fermentation of probiotic dairy products. The capacity of the nongrowing cells to produce CLA is also of great relevance for the emerging nonfermented probiotic foods.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations56
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MicrobiologySame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207