MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Argentinean Lactococcus lactis bacteriophages: genetic characterization and adsorption studies

2007· article· en· W2047013312 on OpenAlexaff
V.B. Suárez, Sylvain Moineau, Jorge Reinheimer, Andréa Quiberoni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversidad Nacional del Litoral
KeywordsLactococcus lactisMicrobiologyBacteriophageLactococcusBiologyCharacterization (materials science)BacteriaChemistryGeneticsGeneMaterials scienceLactic acidNanotechnologyEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Characterization of four virulent Lactococcus lactis phages (CHD, QF9, QF12 and QP4) isolated from whey samples obtained from Argentinean cheese plants. METHODS AND RESULTS: Phages were characterized by means of electron microscopy, host range and DNA studies. The influence of Ca(2+), physiological cell state, pH and temperature on cell adsorption was also investigated. The double-stranded DNA genomes of these lactococcal phages showed distinctive restriction patterns. Using a multiplex PCR, phage QP4 was classified as a member of the P335 polythetic species while the three others belong to the 936 group. Ca(2+) was not needed for phage adsorption but indispensable to complete cell lysis by phage QF9. The lactococci phages adsorbed normally between pH 5 and pH 8, and from 0 degrees C to 40 degrees C, with the exception of phage QF12 which had an adsorption rate significantly lower at pH 8 and 0 degrees C. CONCLUSIONS: Lactococcal phages from Argentina belong to the same predominant groups of phages found in other countries and they have the same general characteristics. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This work is the first study to characterize Argentinean L. lactis bacteriophages.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MicrobiologySame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207