In vitro evaluation of the effect of nicotine, cotinine, and caffeine on oral microorganisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of nicotine, cotinine, and caffeine on the viability of some oral bacterial species. It also evaluated the ability of these bacteria to metabolize those substances. Single-species biofilms of Streptococcus gordonii, Porphyromonas gingivalis, or Fusobacterium nucleatum and dual-species biofilms of S. gordonii -- F. nucleatum and F. nucleatum -- P. gingivalis were grown on hydroxyapatite discs. Seven species were studied as planktonic cells, including Streptococcus oralis, Streptococcus mitis, Propionibacterium acnes, Actinomyces naeslundii, and the species mentioned above. The viability of planktonic cells and biofilms was analyzed by susceptibility tests and time-kill assays, respectively, against different concentrations of nicotine, cotinine, and caffeine. High-performance liquid chromatography was performed to quantify nicotine, cotinine, and caffeine concentrations in the culture media after the assays. Susceptibility tests and viability assays showed that nicotine, cotinine, and caffeine cannot reduce or stimulate bacterial growth. High-performance liquid chromatography results showed that nicotine, cotinine, and caffeine concentrations were not altered after bacteria exposure. These findings indicate that nicotine, cotinine, and caffeine, in the concentrations used, cannot affect significantly the growth of these oral bacterial strains. Moreover, these species do not seem to metabolize these substances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".