Microscopic and Spectroscopic Analyses of Chlorhexidine Tolerance in Delftia acidovorans Biofilms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physicochemical responses of Delftia acidovorans biofilms exposed to the commonly used antimicrobial chlorhexidine (CHX) were examined in this study. A CHX-sensitive mutant (MIC, 1.0 μg ml(-1)) was derived from a CHX-tolerant (MIC, 15.0 μg ml(-1)) D. acidovorans parent strain using transposon mutagenesis. D. acidovorans mutant (MT51) and wild-type (WT15) strain biofilms were cultivated in flow cells and then treated with CHX at sub-MIC and inhibitory concentrations and examined by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM), and infrared (IR) spectroscopy. Specific morphological, structural, and chemical compositional differences between the CHX-treated and -untreated biofilms of both strains were observed. Apart from architectural differences, CLSM revealed a negative effect of CHX on biofilm thickness in the CHX-sensitive MT51 biofilms relative to those of the WT15 strain. STXM analyses showed that the WT15 biofilms contained two morphochemical cell variants, whereas only one type was detected in the MT51 biofilms. The cells in the MT51 biofilms bioaccumulated CHX to a similar extent as one of the cell types found in the WT15 biofilms, whereas the other cell type in the WT15 biofilms did not bioaccumulate CHX. STXM and IR spectral analyses revealed that CHX-sensitive MT51 cells accumulated the highest levels of CHX. Pretreating biofilms with EDTA promoted the accumulation of CHX in all cells. Thus, it is suggested that a subpopulation of cells that do not accumulate CHX appear to be responsible for greater CHX resistance in D. acidovorans WT15 biofilm in conjunction with the possible involvement of bacterial membrane stability.
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".