Comparison of the efficacy of different techniques, culture media, and sources of blood in determining the hemolytic activity of<i>Listeria</i>spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemolytic activity is a fundamental criterion for the differentiation of Listeria species; therefore, a simple and inexpensive procedure to clearly distinguish hemolytic strains from each other and from nonhemolytic strains would be of great aid. We compared the efficacy of several techniques, culture media, and types of blood in demonstrating the hemolysis of Listeria spp. The hemolytic activities of Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria seeligeri were more easily detected with a red blood cell top-layer (RBCTL) technique and with a microplate technique than when the strains were streaked on blood agar (BA). Listeria ivanovii produced a marked hemolysis regardless of the technique employed. In general, the hemolytic activity of these three species was stronger on media containing brain heart infusion (BHI) agar and (or) potassium tellurite (PT). However, Listeria innocua produced questionable hemolytic reactions when nonselective culture media with BHI and PT were utilized, limiting the advantages gained by employing the two compounds. The RBCTL and the BA techniques disclosed greater hemolytic activity for L. monocytogenes, L. seeligeri, and L. ivanovii with sheep and guinea pig blood than with horse and human blood. When the microplate technique was used, all four kinds of blood were equally effective.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".