Interspecies variation in <i>Candida</i> biofilm formation studied using the Calgary biofilm device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An in vitro assay to study multiple Candida biofilms, in parallel, has been carried out using the Calgary biofilm device (CBD). We here report: i) standardization of the CBD for Candida albicans biofilm formation, ii) kinetics of C. albicans biofilm formation, iii) biofilm formation by five Candida species, and iv) effect of dietary carbohydrates on biofilm formation. The biofilm metabolic activity on all CBD pegs was similar (p=0.6693) and C. albicans biofilm formation revealed slow growth up to 36 h and significantly higher growth up to 48 h (p<0.001). Significant differences in total biofilm metabolic activity were seen for glucose, fructose and lactose grown C. albicans compared with sucrose and maltose grown yeasts. Candida krusei developed the largest biofilm mass (p<0.05) relative to C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. dubliniensis and C. tropicalis. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that C. krusei produced a thick multilayered biofilm of pseudohyphal forms embedded within the polymer matrix, whereas C. albicans, C. dubliniensis and C. tropicalis biofilms consisted of clusters or chains of cells with sparse extracellular matrix material. We conclude that CBD is a useful, simple, low cost miniature device for parallel study of Candida biofilms and factors modulating this phenomenon.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".