Novel alternatives to antibiotics: bacteriophages, bacterial cell wall hydrolases, and antimicrobial peptides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive research has been conducted on the development of three groups of naturally occurring antimicrobials as novel alternatives to antibiotics: bacteriophages (phages), bacterial cell wall hydrolases (BCWH), and antimicrobial peptides (AMP). Phage therapies are highly efficient, highly specific, and relatively cost-effective. However, precautions have to be taken in the selection of phage candidates for therapeutic applications as some phages may encode toxins and others may, when integrated into host bacterial genome and converted to prophages in a lysogenic cycle, lead to bacterial immunity and altered virulence. BCWH are divided into three groups: lysozymes, autolysins, and virolysins. Among them, virolysins are the most promising candidates as they are highly specific and have the capability to rapidly lyse antibiotic-resistant bacteria on a generally species-specific basis. Finally, AMP are a family of natural proteins produced by eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms or encoded by phages. AMP are of vast diversity in term of size, structure, mode of action, and specificity and have a high potential for clinical therapeutic applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".