In vitro evaluation of the viability of vaginal cells (VK2/E6E7) and probiotic Lactobacillus species in lemon juice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women, especially in developing countries, most often bear the brunt of HIV infections. The continued lack of viable vaccines and microbicides has made some women resort to using natural products such as lemon or lime juice to avoid infection. Few in vitro studies have been done on the effect of lemon juice on vaginal cells and lactobacilli that constitute the major microbiota in healthy women. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate in vitro the effect of lemon juice on the viability of vaginal cells (VK2/E6E7) and vaginal Lactobacillus species. METHODS: Vaginal cells were exposed to different concentrations (0-30%) of lemon juice at pH 2.3 and 4.5 for 10 min. Viability was determined by staining the cells with propidium iodide and analysing them by flow cytometry. Lactobacillus organisms were dispensed into microplates with vaginally defined medium + peptone (VDMP) containing different concentrations of lemon juice ranging from 0 to 100%. RESULTS: Lemon juice at pH 2.3 had a significant (P = 0.03) toxic effect on the vaginal cell line used. At 30% concentration, the vaginal cells were practically non-viable, typified by a 95% loss of viability, whereas at pH 4.5 there was only 5% cell loss. Lemon juice had varying growth inhibitory effects on the Lactobacillus species tested. At pH 4.5 and using 10-30% lemon juice, there was a stimulatory growth effect on certain Lactobacillus species. CONCLUSIONS: Lemon juice (20-30%) at pH 2.3 was highly toxic to VK2/E6E7 cells, and at pH 4.5 there was no significant effect on the viability of the cells within 10 min. Lemon juice above 10% at pH 2.3 was found to be detrimental to the growth of vaginal lactobacilli. Although lemon juice may be useful in other applications, its use in the vaginal region should be discouraged.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".