Differential metabolic activity by dental plaque bacteria in association with two preparations of MUC5B mucins in solution and in biofilms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Salivary mucin, MUC5B, is an oligomeric glycoprotein, heterogeneous in size and with a diverse repertoire of oligosaccharides, which differ in composition and charge. Since complex salivary glycoproteins are considered to be the major source of nutrients for the oral supragingival microbiota, the major aim of the current study was to determine whether different preparations of non-denatured MUC5B could be isolated exhibiting different biological properties in relation to the microflora associated with the surfaces of the oral cavity. Two preparations, solMUC5B and gelMUC5B, were isolated by density-gradient centrifugation and were shown to have different buoyant densities, carbohydrate content and surface-adsorbing characteristics. To ascertain differences in biological activity, the two mucin preparations, both in solution and adsorbed to a model surface, were incubated with freshly isolated dental plaque and assayed for metabolic (dehydrogenase) activity with the fluoresecent substrate CTC (5-cyano-2,3-ditolyl tetrazolium chloride). The plaque bacteria exhibited higher metabolism with the solMUC5B preparation in solution, with 79.4 % active plaque cells compared to the controls without mucin (9.6 %), while gelMUC5B showed 48.2 % active cells with the same plaque population. In contrast, the same mucins adhered to a surface elicited a significantly lower metabolic response, with surface-associated plaque cells showing only 12.1 % active cells with solMUC5B and 29.2 % with gelMUC5B. These results suggested that the metabolism by the plaque cells adsorbed to surface-associated mucins was downregulated compared to the same cells suspended in mucin solution. This was confirmed in an experiment where active dispersed plaque/solMUC5B suspensions were shown to lose significant metabolic activity (e.g. 74.9 to 19.3 %) when allowed to interact with gelMUC5B adsorbed to a surface. Clearly, the solMUC5B and gelMUC5B preparations exhibited different biological activity when assayed with freshly plaque bacteria in suspension and in a biofilm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".