<i>In-vitro</i>analysis of APA microcapsules for oral delivery of live bacterial cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral administration of microcapsules containing live bacterial cells has potential as an alternative therapy for several diseases. This article evaluates the suitability of the alginate-poly-L-lysine-alginate (APA) microcapsules for oral delivery of live bacterial cells, in-vitro, using a dynamic simulated human gastro-intestinal (GI) model. Results showed that the APA microcapsules were morphologically stable in the simulated stomach conditions, but did not retain their structural integrity after a 3-day exposure in simulated human GI media. The microbial populations of the tested bacterial cells and the activities of the tested enzymes in the simulated human GI suspension were not substantially altered by the presence of the APA microcapsules, suggesting that there were no significant adverse effects of oral administration of the APA microcapsules on the flora of the human gastrointestinal tract. When the APA microcapsules containing Lactobacillus plantarum 80 (LP80) were challenged in the simulated gastric medium (pH = 2.0), 80.0% of the encapsulated cells remained viable after a 5-min incubation; however, the viability decreased considerably (8.3%) after 15 min and dropped to 2.6% after 30 min and lower than 0.2% after 60 min, indicating the limitations of the currently obtainable APA membrane for oral delivery of live bacteria. Further in-vivo studies are required before conclusions can be made concerning the inadequacy of APA microcapsules for oral delivery of live bacterial cells.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".