MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103374038 · doi:10.1128/aac.01329-10

Quantifying Diffusion in a Biofilm of <i>Streptococcus mutans</i>

2010· article· en· W2103374038 on OpenAlexaff
Zeshi Zhang, Elena Nadezhina, Kevin J. Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofilmStreptococcus mutansRhodamine 6GDiffusionChemistryIonic strengthIonic bondingSurface chargeBiocideMicrobiologyBiophysicsBacteriaBiologyMoleculeIonPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryAqueous solution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biofilms, diffusion may limit the chemical activity of nutrients, toxic compounds, and medicines. This study provides direct, noninvasive insight into the factors that will most effectively limit the transport of antibiotics and biocides in biofilms. Self-diffusion coefficients have been determined for a number of fluorescent probes in biofilms of Streptococcus mutans using fluorescence correlation spectroscopy. The effects of probe size and charge and the roles of biofilm pH, ionic strength, and heterogeneity were studied systematically. The relative diffusion coefficients (D in the biofilm divided by that in water) decreased with increasing probe size (3,000-molecular-weight [3K], 10K, 40K, 70K, and 2,000K dextrans). Studies using variably charged substrates (tetramethylrhodamine, Oregon Green, rhodamine B, and rhodamine 6G) showed that the self-diffusion coefficients decreased with an increasing negative charge of the fluorescent probes. No significant effect was observed for changes to the ionic strength (10⁻⁴ to 10⁻¹ M) or pH (4 to 9) of the biofilm. Biofilm heterogeneity was responsible for variations of ca. one order of magnitude in the diffusion coefficients.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations83
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Agents and ChemotherapySame topicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensingFrench-language works237,207