MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arginine and citrulline do not stimulate growth of two<i>Oenococcus oeni</i>strains in wine

2008· article· en· W1973319869 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicolas Terrade

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersLallemand
KeywordsOenococcus oeniMalolactic fermentationWineArginineBiochemistryLactobacillus buchneriCitrullineFood scienceFermentationChemistryBiologyLactic acidBacteriaAmino acidLactobacillus plantarum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arginine metabolism by wine lactic acid bacteria (LAB) may lead to wine quality degradation. While arginine is essential for growth of the wine relevant LAB Oenococcus oeni, it remains unclear whether it also stimulates its growth. This study evaluated the effect of arginine and citrulline, the partially metabolized intermediate of the arginine deiminase pathway, on the growth of two commercial O. oeni strains in comparison with a Lactobacillus buchneri strain in wine and at wine pH values. Neither arginine nor citrulline increased growth of both O. oeni strains in comparison with the L. buchneri strain. However, arginine and citrulline were partially degraded in all incubations. The extent of citrulline degradation correlated with lower pH values in oenococcal cultivations but with higher pH values in those of the L. buchneri strain. The degradation kinetics of O. oeni and L. buchneri for malic acid and arginine differed and the latter grew in sterile filtered post-malolactic fermentation wine. This study shows that arginine and citrulline did not stimulate growth of the two O. oeni strains studied, and that their physiological role differed among the wine LAB considered. While arginine may play a role in wine microbiological stability, other nutrients should be investigated for their suitability to create a selective ecological advantage for O. oeni strains in wine.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207