MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119318174 · doi:10.1139/w03-088

Screening of nonpolyenic antifungal metabolites produced by clinical isolates of actinomycetes

2003· article· en· W2119318174 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sanaâ Lemriss, Frédéric Laurent, Andrée Couble, Emmanuelle Casoli, Jean‐Marc Lancelin, D. Saintpierre-Bonaccio, Saida Rifai, Aziz Fassouane, Patrick Boiron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsErgosterolMicrobiologyAntifungalBiologyStreptomycesAntifungal drugsStrain (injury)BacteriaBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work was to screen clinical isolates of actinomycetes producing nonpolyenic antifungals. This choice was made to limit the problem of rediscovery of well-known antifungal families, especially polyenic antifungals. One hundred and ten strains were tested, using two diffusion methods and two test media, against three yeast species and three filamentous fungi. Among 54 strains (49%) showing antifungal activity, five strains belonging to the genus Streptomyces were active against all test organisms and appeared promising. These results indicate that clinical and environmental isolates of actinomycetes could be an interesting source of antifungal bioactive substances. The production of nonpolyenic antifungal substances by these five active isolates was investigated using several criteria: antibacterial activity, ergosterol inhibition, and UV-visible spectra of active extracts. One active strain responded to all three selection criteria and produced potentially nonpolyenic antifungal metabolites. This strain was retained for further investigation, in particular, purification, structure elucidation, and mechanism of action of the active product.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations44
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMicrobial Natural Products and BiosynthesisFrench-language works237,207