A comparison of DNA repair and survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 following exposure to both low- and medium-pressure UV irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA repair and survival of pathogenic E. coli O157:H7 was investigated following exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from both low-pressure (LP) and medium-pressure (MP) lamps. This study included irradiation at UV doses used in drinking water treatment and lower doses indicative of potential treatment problems. Immediately following UV exposure, an average log inactivation of 4.5 or greater was observed following all tested doses of LP (5, 8, 20 and 40 mJ/cm(2)) or MP UV (5 and 8 mJ/cm(2)) indicating the sensitivity of E. coli O157:H7 to UV irradiation. Following conditions conducive to repair, maximum photo repair occurred rapidly within 30 minutes after low doses (5 and 8 mJ/cm(2)) of LP UV. The rate of repair was much higher than reported previously in non-pathogenic E. coli (which occurred within 2 hours). In contrast to LP UV, limited photo repair of E. coli O157:H7 was observed following MP UV exposure at reduced doses (5 and 8 mJ/cm(2)). At these lower doses, low levels of light independent repair were observed following LP UV, but not following exposure of MP UV irradiation. This study indicates that MP UV may enhance UV disinfection of E. coli O157:H7 by reducing the ability to repair following non-ideal treatment conditions. Following doses used in drinking water treatment (20 and 40 mJ/cm(2)), low levels of photo repair following LP UV were evident.
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 | 0.000 | 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".