Biochemical analysis of respiratory metabolism in the heterofermentative<i>Lactobacillus spicheri</i>and<i>Lactobacillus reuteri</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study evaluated the aerobic and respiratory metabolism in Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus spicheri, two heterofermentative species used in sourdough fermentation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In silico genome analysis, production of metabolites and gene expression of pyruvate oxidase, pyruvate dehydrogenase and cytochrome oxidase were assessed in anaerobic and aerobic cultures of Lact. reuteri and Lact. spicheri. Respiring homofermentative Lactobacillus casei N87 and Lact. rhamnosus N132 were used for comparison. Aerobiosis and respiration increased the biomass production of heterofermentative strains compared to anaerobic cultivation. Respiration led to acetoin production by Lact. rhamnosus and Lact. casei, but not in heterofermentative strains, in which lactate and acetate were the major end-products. Lactobacillus spicheri LP38 showed the highest oxygen uptake. Pyruvate oxidase, respiratory cytochromes, NADH oxidase and NADH peroxidase were present in the genome of Lact. spicheri LP38. Both Lact. spicheri LP38 and Lact. rhamnosus N132 overexpressed pox in aerobic cultures, while cydA was up-regulated only when haeme was supplied; pdh was repressed during aerobic growth. CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic and respiratory growth provided physiological and metabolic advantages also in heterofermentative lactobacilli. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The exploitation of oxygen-tolerant phenotypes of Lact. spicheri may be useful for the development of improved starter cultures.
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 | 0.000 | 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".