Bacterial chemotaxis differences in<i>Escherichia coli</i>isolated from different hosts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms mediating the association between Escherichia coli and specific hosts are unknown. This study investigates the hypothesis that the host-specific associations of E. coli strains are mediated in part by differences in chemotaxis. To test this hypothesis, chemotactic responses of E. coli strains isolated from different host groups (carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores) were tested with various attractants. In low-density agar chemotaxis assays, the average motility of E. coli in response to aspartate, serine, and ribose among the different groups was not significantly different; however, strains from carnivores responded significantly more to aspartate, relative to their responses to serine, in comparison with strains from herbivores, which responded equally or better to serine than to aspartate. The relatively greater chemotactic response of strains from carnivores to aspartate than to serine was confirmed in a subset of strains by capillary chemotaxis assay. Differences in responses to serine and aspartate were not due to growth differences, as determined by comparison of 24 h growth curves with glycerol, aspartate, and serine carbon sources. The differences in chemotactic behavior of E. coli strains isolated from herbivores and carnivores support the hypothesis that host-specific associations of E. coli strains are mediated in part by differences in chemotactic behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".