MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multiple characterizations of Listeria monocytogenes sensitive and insensitive variants to divergicin M35, a new pediocin-like bacteriocin

2005· article· en· W2156047254 on OpenAlexafffund
Karim Naghmouchi, Djamel Drider, Ehab Kheadr, Christophe Lacroix, Hervé Prévost, Ismaı̈l Fliss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsListeria monocytogenesBacteriocinMicrobiologyBiologyMinimum inhibitory concentrationStrain (injury)BacteriaFood scienceAntimicrobialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Divergicin M35 is a new class IIa bacteriocin produced by Carnobacterium divergicin M35. The bactericidal activity of this antimicrobial peptide was tested against a set of 11 strains of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from food. METHODS AND RESULTS: The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined by the microdilution method. The strains tested displayed a different level of sensitivity to divergicin M35. L. monocytogenes LSD530, referred to as DivS strain, was the most sensitive and appeared to be inhibited by concentration of divergicin M35 below 0.13 microg ml(-1). The mutant resistant to divergicin M35, called DivM, was obtained from L. monocytogenes LSD530 (DivS) by gradually increasing the amounts of divergicin M35 until 1.3 microg ml(-1). Notably, DivM was stable after 50 generations. DivS parental strain was inhibited by a concentration of 4 microg ml(-1). L. monocytogenes LSD530 was shown to be resistant to divergicin M35 at 1.3 microg ml(-1). Remarkably, in the presence of divalent cations such as Ca(2+), Mg(2+) and Mn(2+), the lethality caused by divergicin M35 was reduced by 0.48, 0.54 and 0.63 log CFU per ml (after 18 h at 30 degrees C), respectively. The total DNA profiles of DivS and DivM were similar. DivS and DivM showed variable sensitivity to antibiotics. The two-dimensional (2-D) electrophoresis of cell wall proteins did not show any significant difference between DivS and DivM strains but their fatty acid composition showed a significant difference in C(16:0) content. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance to divergicin M35 is likely ascribed to modification in cell wall fatty acid composition rather than protein modification. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This study provides original results contributing to understanding of the resistance of L. monocytogenes to divergicin M35, a new class IIa bacteriocin.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MicrobiologySame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207