Susceptibility of Pediococcus isolates to antimicrobial compounds in relation to hop-resistance and beer-spoilage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though important in the context of food microbiology and as potential pathogens in immuno-compromised humans, bacterial isolates belonging to the genus Pediococcus are best known for their association with contamination of ethanol fermentation processes (beer, wine, or fuel ethanol). Use of antimicrobial compounds (e.g., hop-compounds, Penicillin) by some industries to combat Pediococcus contaminants is long-standing, yet knowledge about the resistance of pediococci to antimicrobial agents is minimal. Here we examined Pediococcus isolates to determine whether antibiotic resistance is associated with resistance to hops, presence of genes known to correlate with beer spoilage, or with ability to grow in beer. RESULTS: Lactic acid bacteria susceptibility test broth medium (LSM) used in combination with commercially available GPN3F antimicrobial susceptibility plates was an effective method for assessing antimicrobial susceptibility of Pediococcus isolates. We report the finding of Vancomycin-susceptible Pediococcus isolates from four species. Interestingly, we found that hop-resistant, beer-spoilage, and beer-spoilage gene-harbouring isolates had a tendency to be more susceptible, rather than more resistant, to antimicrobial compounds. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the mechanisms involved in conferring hop-resistance or ability to spoil beer by Pediococcus isolates are not associated with resistance to antibiotics commonly used for treatment of human infections. Also, Vancomycin-resistance was found to be isolate-specific and not intrinsic to the genus as previously believed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".