Adsorption, attachment and biofilm formation among isolates of Listeria monocytogenes using model conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine whether isolates of Listeria monocytogenes differ in their ability to adsorb and form biofilms on a food-grade stainless steel surface. METHODS AND RESULTS: Strains were assessed for their ability to adsorb to a test surface over a short time period. Although some differences in numbers of bound cells were found among the strains, there were no correlations between the degree of adsorption and either the serotype or source of the strain. The ability of each strain to form a biofilm when grown with the test surface was also assessed. With the exception of a single strain, all strains adhered as single cells and did not form biofilms. Significant differences in adherence levels were found among strains. Strains demonstrating enhanced attachment produced extracellular fibrils, whereas those which adhered poorly did not. A single strain formed a biofilm consisting of adhered single cells and aggregates of cells. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found in the ability of various L. monocytogenes strains to attach to a test surface. In monoculture, the majority of strains did not form biofilms. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Differences in attachment and biofilm formation among strains provide a basis to study these characteristics in L. monocytogenes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".