MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070150908 · doi:10.1093/jmicro/52.2.207

Ultrastructural and cytochemical study of cell wall modification by lactoferrin, lactoferricin and penicillin G against Staphylococcus aureus

2003· article· en· W2070150908 on OpenAlexaff
Moussa S. Diarra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electron Microscopy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactoferrinPenicillinStaphylococcus aureusCell wallUltrastructureMedicineMicrobiologyChemistryBiologyPathologyBiochemistryAntibioticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the effect of lactoferrin or lactoferricin with or without penicillin G, light and transmission electron microscopy were performed on thin sections of two Staphylococcus aureus strains. Lactoferrin affected the ultrastructure of S. aureus and groups of undivided cells were observed after lactoferrin treatment with or without penicillin G. These results suggest that lactoferrin can affect staphylococcal cell separation and therefore prevent dissemination of daughter cells from spreading infection. After treatment with lactoferrin, S. aureus cells were less covered (P<0.05) with wheatgerm agglutinin labelled with gold, thus suggesting that lactoferrin affected the synthesis of peptidoglycan and/or the binding to N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosamine. Lactoferricin with or without penicillin G induced the lysis of many bacteria, formation of mesosomal structures and modifications of cell wall. Lactating female CD-1 mice were infected by intramammary delivery of a penicillin-resistant S. aureus strain and were then randomly assigned to treatments according to a 2 x 2 factorial design. Electron microscopy examination showed that 2 days of systemic treatments with lactoferrin affected the morphology and aggregation of S. aureus. In conclusion, lactoferrin and lactoferricin affect S. aureus morphology which may facilitate its killing by penicillin G.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electron MicroscopySame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207