Examination of adhesive determinants in three species of<i>Lactobacillus</i>isolated from chicken
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microbial adhesion process includes passive forces; electrostatic interactions; hydrophobic, steric forces; lipoteichoic acids; and specific structures, such as external appendages (lectins) and (or) extracellular polymers. In a previous work, we showed that Lactobacillus animalis, L. fermentum, and L. fermentum ssp. cellobiosus had lectinlike proteic structures on their surfaces and high hydrophobicity values on the cell surface of L. fermentum ssp. cellobiosus. Here, we examined the presence of the bacterial forces or structures that could be involved in the interaction between bacteria and epithelial cells. Lactobacillus animalis and L. fermentum possessed a net negative surface charge, whereas L. fermentum ssp. cellobiosus showed similar affinity to both cationic and anionic exchange resins, aggregated in the presence of ammonium sulfate, and had high affinity (75.4%) to a hydrophobic matrix. Only L. animalis was shown to have ribitol teichoic acids in the cell wall. The amount of polysaccharides from cell walls varied between different strains, with L. fermentum ssp. cellobiosus having the highest concentration. Lectin extracts obtained from lactobacilli did not possess sugar residues, thereby demonstrating the proteic nature of the superficial surface structures of three strains. The lactic acid bacteria studied here showed different surface determinants, which could be involved in the interactions between these lactobacilli and intestinal epithelial cells.
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) | 0.000 | 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".