MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084271864 · doi:10.1139/w03-092

Survival of lactococci during passage through mouse digestive tract

2003· article· en· W2084271864 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiromi Kimoto, Masaru Nomura, Miho Kobayashi, Koko Mizumachi, Takashi Okamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbioticBiologyLactococcus lactisMicrobiologyFecesIn vivoGastrointestinal tractBacteriaIn vitroSmall intestineAntibioticsStrain (injury)Lactic acidBiochemistryBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the important properties of probiotics is the ability to survive in the intestine. There have been few studies on the probiotic property of lactococci, since they are formally not considered to be natural inhabitants of the intestine. To evaluate lactococci as probiotic bacteria, we investigated their ability to survive during gastric transit by in vitro and in vivo tests. When exposed to an in vitro simulated gastrointestinal environment, such as low pH and bile, only Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis bv. diacetylactis N7 showed a moderate survival rate among the four strains tested. The tested strains were orally administered to mice, and intestinal passage of the ingested strains was monitored by two methods: antibiotics and PCR. Viable cells of strain N7 were recovered from feces within 24-48 h after administration but not at 72 h. Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris ATCC 19257, which had a poor survival rate in vitro test, was also detected at 12 h but not at 24 h. These results indicate that lactococci can reach the mouse intestine alive, but not colonize it. If administered daily, viable strain N7 may exist continuously in the intestine. The effect of strain N7 on intestinal microbial balance and on animal health will be the subject of a further study.

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 score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations84
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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