Comparative adherence to human A549 cells, plant fibronectin-like protein, and polystyrene surfaces of four<i>Pseudomonas fluorescens</i>strains from different ecological origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to compare the adherence properties of four Pseudomonas fluorescens isolates from different ecological niches (human tissue, rhizosphere, drinking water, and cow milk). The substrates used to test P. fluorescens adherence were as follows: cultured human respiratory epithelial cells A549, immobilized plant fibronectin-like protein, and polystyrene. For all the experiments, bacteria were grown at 27 degrees C. The adherence assay to human cells was performed at 37 degrees C, whereas adherence to fibronectin and polystyrene was done at 27 degrees C. The four strains tested adhered to A549 cells but showed different adherence patterns. At 3 h, the milk isolate showed an aggregative adherence phenotype, whereas the three other isolates showed a diffuse adherence pattern. With a longer incubation time of 24 h, the aggregative pattern of the milk isolate disappeared, the adherence of the clinical strain increased, the adherence of the water isolate decreased, and morphological changes in A549 cells were observed with the clinical, water, and soil isolates. The four strains tested formed biofilms on polystyrene dishes. The clinical and milk isolates were the more efficient colonizers of polystyrene surfaces and also the more adherent to immobilized plant fibronectin-like protein. There was no relation between bacterial surface hydrophobicity and P. fluorescens adherence to the substrates tested. The main conclusions of these results are that P. fluorescens is an adherent bacterium, that no clear correlation exists between adherence and ecological habitat, and that P. fluorescens can adhere well to substrates not present in its natural environment.
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) | 0.000 | 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".