Improved growth and viability of lactobacilli in the presence of<i>Bacillus subtilis</i>(<i>natto</i>), catalase, or subtilisin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to demonstrate the potential usefulness of Bacillus subtilis (natto) as a probiotic, we examined the effect of this organism on the growth of three strains of lactobacilli co-cultured aerobically in vitro. Addition of B. subtilis (natto) to the culture medium resulted in an increase in the number of viable cells of all lactobacilli tested. Since B. subtilis (natto) can produce catalase, which has been reported to exhibit a similar growth-promoting effect on lactobacilli, we also examined the effect of bovine catalase on the growth of Lactobacillus reuteri JCM 1112 and L. acidophilus JCM 1132. Both catalase and B. subtilis (natto) enhanced the growth of L. reuteri JCM 1112, whereas B. subtilis (natto) but not catalase enhanced the growth of L. acidophilus JCM 1132. In a medium containing 0.1 mM hydrogen peroxide, its toxic effect on L. reuteri JCM 1112 was abolished by catalase or B. subtilis (natto). In addition, a serine protease from B. licheniformis, subtilisin, improved the growth and viability of L. reuteri JCM 1112 and L. acidophilus JCM 1132 in the absence of hydrogen peroxide. These results indicate that B. subtilis (natto) enhances the growth and (or) viability of lactobacilli, possibly through production of catalase and subtilisin.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".