Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniaegenes expression in biofilms cultured under static conditions and in a drip-flow apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae is the Gram-negative bacterium responsible for porcine pleuropneumonia. This respiratory infection is highly contagious and characterized by high morbidity and mortality. The objectives of our study were to study the transcriptome of A. pleuropneumoniae biofilms at different stages and to develop a protocol to grow an A. pleuropneumoniae biofilm in a drip-flow apparatus. This biofilm reactor is a system with an air-liquid interface modeling lung-like environment. Bacteria attached to a surface (biofilm) and free floating bacteria (plankton) were harvested for RNA isolation. Labelled cDNA was hybridized to a microarray to compare the expression profiles of planktonic cells and biofilm cells. RESULTS: It was observed that 47 genes were differentially expressed (22 up, 25 down) in a 4 h-static growing/maturing biofilm and 117 genes were differentially expressed (49 up, 68 down) in a 6h-static dispersing biofilm. The transcriptomes of a 4 h biofilm and a 6 h biofilm were also compared and 456 genes (235 up, 221 down) were identified as differently expressed. Among the genes identified in the 4 h vs 6h biofilm experiment, several regulators of stress response were down-regulated and energy metabolism associated genes were up-regulated. Biofilm bacteria cultured using the drip-flow apparatus differentially expressed 161 genes (68 up, 93 down) compared to the effluent bacteria. Cross-referencing of differentially transcribed genes in the different assays revealed that drip-flow biofilms shared few differentially expressed genes with static biofilms (4 h or 6 h) but shared several differentially expressed genes with natural or experimental infections in pigs. CONCLUSION: The formation of a static biofilm by A. pleuropneumoniae strain S4074 is a rapid process and transcriptional analysis indicated that dispersal observed at 6 h is driven by nutritional stresses. Furthermore, A. pleuropneumoniae can form a biofilm under low-shear force in a drip-flow apparatus and analyses indicated that the formation of a biofilm under low-shear force requires a different sub-set of genes than a biofilm grown under static conditions. The drip-flow apparatus may represent the better in vitro model to investigate biofilm formation of A. pleuropneumoniae.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".