Adhesion of probiotic lactobacilli to chick intestinal mucus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present work, interactions between three Lactobacillus strains (Lactobacillus fermentum CRL1015, Lactobacillus animalis CRL1014, and Lactobacillus fermentum CRL1016) and chicken small intestinal mucus were determined. Three lactobacilli isolated from chicken and selected by their potentially probiotic properties were able to grow in mucus preparations. Three peaks from gel filtration chromatography of intestinal mucus were obtained. The adhesion to three mucus fractions (I, II, and III), especially fraction III, was higher (P < 0.01) in L. fermentum CRL1015 than L. animalis CRL1014. Pretreatment of this fraction with proteases and metaperiodate showed lower (P < 0.01) adhesion values than that of the control, suggesting that a glycoprotein from the mucus acts as a receptor for L. fermentum CRL1015. Highest adhesion values were obtained at pH 7 and 42 degrees C, and neither the removal of divalent cations with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) nor the addition of calcium produced significant variation from the adhesion values of the control (P > 0.01). This adhesion was only inhibited by N-acetyl-glucosamine. Salmonella pullorum and Salmonella gallinarum showed high (P < 0.01) values of adhesion to chick intestinal mucus. The results obtained from assays of the inhibition of adherence of Salmonella spp. to mucus, immobilized in polystyrene tissue culture wells, indicated that the pathogen adhesion was not reduced by lactobacilli (P > 0.05) or their spent culture supernatants (P > 0.05), suggesting that these strains did not interfere with the binding sites for Salmonella spp. adhesion to the small intestinal mucus.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".