Ecological Behavior of<i>Lactobacillus reuteri</i>100-23 Is Affected by Mutation of the<i>luxS</i>Gene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The luxS gene of Lactobacillus reuteri 100-23C was amplified by PCR, cloned, and then sequenced. To define a physiological and ecological role for the luxS gene in L. reuteri 100-23C, a luxS mutant was constructed by insertional mutagenesis. The luxS mutant did not produce autoinducers AI-2 or AI-3. Complementation of the luxS mutation by a plasmid construct containing luxS restored AI-2 and AI-3 synthesis. In vitro experiments revealed that neither the growth rate, nor the cell yield, nor cell survival in the stationary phase were compromised in the luxS mutant relative to the wild type and complemented mutant. The ATP content of exponentially growing cells of the luxS mutant was, however, 65% of that of wild-type cells. Biofilms formed by the luxS mutant on plastic surfaces in a bioreactor were thicker than those formed by the wild type. Biofilm thickness was not restored to wild-type values by the addition of purified AI-2 to the culture medium. In vivo experiments, conducted with ex-Lactobacillus-free mice, showed that biofilms formed by the mutant strain on the epithelial surface of the forestomach were approximately twice as thick as those formed by the wild type. The ecological performance of the luxS mutant, when in competition with L. reuteri strain 100-93 in the mouse cecum, was reduced compared to that of a xylA mutant of 100-23C. These results demonstrate that LuxS influences important ecological attributes of L. reuteri 100-23C, the consequences of which are niche specific.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".