Lactoferrin and desferrioxamine are ineffective in the treatment of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>infection and may enhance<i>H. pylori</i>growth and gastric inflammation in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of bovine lactoferrin (BLf), recombinant human lactoferrin (rHLf) and desferrioxamine against Helicobacter pylori in vitro and in mice and also to determine whether BLf or rHLf alter gastric inflammation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In vitro: Broth dilution susceptibility tests were performed using different concentrations of desferrioxamine, BLf and rHLf. Murine trials: In the prevention trial, C57BL/6 female mice were treated with BLf or rHLF, and then infected with the SS1 strain of H. pylori. In the treatment trial, mice were gavaged with either BLf, rHLf or desferrioxamine. In addition, gastric myeloperoxidase activity (MPO) was measured to assess gastric inflammation. Desferoxamine was found to have a direct bactericidal effect, while BLf and rHLf only partially suppressed H. pylori growth in vitro. However, in both prevention and treatment trials all three forms of treatment failed to reduce H. pylori load in mice. Gastric MPO activity and H. pylori load were noted to be higher with lactoferrin treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not support the use of BLf or rHLF in the treatment of human H. pylori infection. Interestingly, H. pylori growth and gastric inflammation appear to be enhanced by lactoferrin treatment. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The mouse model is ideal for testing novel H. pylori eradicating agents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".