MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052710313 · doi:10.1139/w02-036

Some factors affecting the adherence of probiotic <i>Propionibacterium acidipropionici</i> CRL 1198 to intestinal epithelial cells

2002· article· en· W2052710313 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gabriela Zárate, Vilma Morata De Ambrosini, Adriana Pérez Chaia, Silvia González

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional de Tucumán
KeywordsPropionibacteriumProbioticMicrobiologyMucusPropionibacterium freudenreichiiIn vitroMucinIntestinal mucosaBiologyIn vivoAdhesionBacteriaChemistryBiochemistryFermentationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adhesion to the intestinal mucosa is generally considered an important property of probiotic microorganisms and has been related to many of their health benefits. This study investigated some factors that could affect or be involved in the adherence of Propionibacterium acidipropionici CRL 1198, a dairy strain with suggested probiotic effects and high adherence in vitro and in vivo to intestinal epithelial cells. In vitro adhesion of propionibacteria was decreased by gastric digestion but not affected by bile and pancreatic enzymes. Adherence was also decreased by pretreatment of bacterial cells with protease, sodium metaperiodate, and trichloroacetic acid, revealing that different features of the cell surface, like protein factors, carbohydrates, and teichoic acids, are involved in the process. Adherence to intestinal epithelial cells was enhanced by calcium and was dependent on other divalent cations. Adhesion to intestinal mucus was also demonstrated. The results should explain the metabolic effects in the host previously obtained with this strain and support the potential of Propionibacterium for development of new probiotics.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations39
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207