Adherence of bacteria to mucus collected from different parts of the reproductive tract of heifers and cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, we examined the adherence of indigenous vaginal bacteria, probiotic strains, and metritis pathogens to mucus collected from different parts of the reproductive tracts of heifers and cows and compared their adherence with the bacterial adherence to mucus collected from the stomach and large intestine of pigs. Most of the vaginal strains adhered to mucus collected from different parts of the reproductive tract and strongly adhered to gastric mucus, with the exception of Lactobacillus buchneri 24S8. Only Lactobacillus mucosae 29S8, Enterococcus faecium E21, and E. faecium EAC adhered to colonic mucus. Probiotic strains adhered strongly to mucus collected from the reproductive tract and gastric mucus but did not adhere to colonic mucus. Pathogenic strains were adherent to vaginal, uterine horn, and gastric mucus, except Escherichia coli O8:K88ab:H9 (65), Fusobacterium necrophorum, and Gardnerella vaginalis, which adhered to uterine cervix mucus. Only Kocuria kristinae and G. vaginalis adhered to uterine body mucus; E. coli O149:K88ac (EC) adhered to colonic mucus. The strains did not exhibit host specificity but rather strain specificity. The ability to adhere to mucus was a characteristic unique to each strain. To our knowledge, this is the first report regarding in vitro adherence of GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) lactobacilli isolated from different sources to mucus collected from different parts of the reproductive tract.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".