MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083490229 · doi:10.1039/c3nr05462d

Single-cell force spectroscopy of pili-mediated adhesion

2013· article· en· W2083490229 on OpenAlexaff
Ruby May A. Sullan, Audrey Beaussart, Prachi Tripathi, Sylvie Derclaye, Sofiane El‐Kirat‐Chatel, James K. Li, Yves‐Jacques Schneider, Jos Vanderleyden, Sarah Lebeer, Yves F. Dufrêne

Bibliographic record

VenueNanoscale · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersKU LeuvenFédération Wallonie-BruxellesFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsPilusForce spectroscopyAdhesionSpectroscopyCell adhesionMaterials scienceBiophysicsNanotechnologyChemistryAtomic force microscopyBiologyBiochemistryPhysicsComposite materialEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although bacterial pili are known to mediate cell adhesion to a variety of substrates, the molecular interactions behind this process are poorly understood. We report the direct measurement of the forces guiding pili-mediated adhesion, focusing on the medically important probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG). Using non-invasive single-cell force spectroscopy (SCFS), we quantify the adhesion forces between individual bacteria and biotic (mucin, intestinal cells) or abiotic (hydrophobic monolayers) surfaces. On hydrophobic surfaces, bacterial pili strengthen adhesion through remarkable nanospring properties, which - presumably - enable the bacteria to resist high shear forces under physiological conditions. On mucin, nanosprings are more frequent and adhesion forces larger, reflecting the influence of specific pili-mucin bonds. Interestingly, these mechanical responses are no longer observed on human intestinal Caco-2 cells. Rather, force curves exhibit constant force plateaus with extended ruptures reflecting the extraction of membrane nanotethers. These single-cell analyses provide novel insights into the molecular mechanisms by which piliated bacteria colonize surfaces (nanosprings, nanotethers), and offer exciting avenues in nanomedicine for understanding and controlling the adhesion of microbial cells (probiotics, pathogens).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations83
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanoscaleSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207