Isolation of bovine intestinal<i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i>and<i>Pediococcus acidilactici</i>with inhibitory activity against<i>Escherichia coli</i>O157 and F5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The growth rate of bovine lactic acid bacteria (LAB) in five different culture conditions, and their inhibitory activity against Escherichia coli O157 and F5 in two assays was assessed to identify LAB for potential prophylactic use in cattle. METHODS AND RESULTS: 106 bovine-derived faecal/intestinal LAB were tested in vitro for tolerance to pH 2.0, pH 4.0, 0.15% and 0.3% bile, aerobic incubation, and for inhibitory activity against E. coli O157 (n = 3) and F5 (n = 1). While no LAB grew at pH 2.0, LAB survivability varied between 35% and 100% on the other tests. Exactly 7.6% (8/106) of LAB supernatants inhibited the growth of E. coli in two assays, whereas 6.6% (7/106) of isolates enhanced the growth of all E. coli strains. Partial 16s rRNA gene sequencing of six best isolates (95th percentile) revealed that five were Lactobacillus plantarum and one Pediococcus acidilactici. CONCLUSION: Lactobacillus plantarum with acid/bile and aerobic resistance and inhibitory activity against E. coli O157 and F5 inhabit the intestinal tract of healthy cattle. Some LAB may enhance E. coli growth. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Lactobacillus plantarum and P. acidilactici are natural plant micro-organisms and studied silage inoculants. Their identification from gastrointestinal samples of healthy cattle is prophylactically promising.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".