Effect of Purified Lipopolysaccharides from Strains of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> and <i>Helicobacter felis</i> on Acid Secretion in Mouse Gastric Glands In Vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a bacterial product, Helicobacter pylori lipopolysaccharide (LPS) can originate in close proximity to parietal cells, but the role of this uniquely structured endotoxin on acid secretion has not been fully investigated and remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to test the direct effect of purified LPS (tested range, 0.1 to 100 microg/ml) from various strains of H. pylori and from one Helicobacter felis strain on histamine- and carbachol-stimulated acid secretion in vitro using mouse gastric glands and the accumulation of [(14)C]aminopyrine. In addition, we investigated whether H. pylori LPS can interfere with two native antisecretory substances, prostaglandin E(2) (PGE(2)) and somatostatin, which may contribute to bacterial pathogenicity. Except for the LPS from H. pylori SS1 (Sydney strain), which gave a statistically significant increase in both histamine- and carbachol-stimulated acid output (38 and 24%, respectively; P < 0.05), no effect of the tested LPS was observed on acid secretion. H. pylori LPS purified from a patient isolate did not affect the potency or the efficacy of the inhibitory dose response curve to PGE(2) or somatostatin. Bacterial interstrain variation in the direct stimulatory effect of Helicobacter-derived LPS on acid secretion was observed, which probably reflects the molecular structure of LPS and the potential to contribute to virulence. Importantly, the data showed that H. pylori LPS did not have any direct antisecretory properties. It can be speculated that the acid stimulatory properties of LPS from H. pylori SS1 may contribute to the gastric damage observed in the mouse model of H. pylori infection.
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".