Adaptive Acid Tolerance Response of <i>Vibrio parahaemolyticus</i> as Affected by Acid Adaptation Conditions, Growth Phase, and Bacterial Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vibrio parahaemolyticus strain 690 was isolated from gastroenteritis patients. Its thermal and ethanol stress responses have been reported in our previous studies. In this study, we further investigated the effects of various acid adaptation conditions including pH (5.0-6.0) and time (30-90 min) on the acid tolerance in different growth phases of V. parahaemolyticus 690. Additionally, the adaptive acid tolerance among different V. parahaemolyticus strains was compared. Results indicated that the acid tolerance of V. parahaemolyticus 690 was significantly increased after acid adaptation at pH 5.5 and 6.0 for 30-90 min. Among the various acid adaptation conditions examined, V. parahaemolyticus 690 acid-adapted at pH 5.5 for 90 min exhibited the highest acid tolerance. The acid adaptation also influenced the acid tolerance of V. parahaemolyticus 690 in different growth phases with late-exponential phase demonstrating the greatest acid tolerance response (ATR) than other phases. Additionally, the results also showed that the induction of adaptive ATR varied with different strains of V. parahaemolyticus. An increase in acid tolerance of V. parahaemolyticus was observed after prior acid adaptation in five strains (556, 690, BCRC 13023, BCRC 13025, and BCRC 12864), but not in strains 405 and BCRC 12863.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".