Taxonomic and Strain-Specific Identification of the Probiotic Strain <i>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</i> 35 within the <i>Lactobacillus casei</i> Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactobacilli are lactic acid bacteria that are widespread in the environment, including the human diet and gastrointestinal tract. Some Lactobacillus strains are regarded as probiotics because they exhibit beneficial health effects on their host. In this study, the long-used probiotic strain Lactobacillus rhamnosus 35 was characterized at a molecular level and compared with seven reference strains from the Lactobacillus casei group. Analysis of rrn operon sequences confirmed that L. rhamnosus 35 indeed belongs to the L. rhamnosus species, and both temporal temperature gradient gel electrophoresis and ribotyping showed that it is closer to the probiotic strain L. rhamnosus ATCC 53103 (also known as L. rhamnosus GG) than to the species type strain. In addition, L. casei ATCC 334 gathered in a coherent cluster with L. paracasei type strains, unlike L. casei ATCC 393, which was closer to L. zeae; this is evidence of the lack of relatedness between the two L. casei strains. Further characterization of the eight strains by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis repetitive DNA element-based PCR identified distinct patterns for each strain, whereas two isolates of L. rhamnosus 35 sampled 40 years apart could not be distinguished. By subtractive hybridization using the L. rhamnosus GG genome as a driver, we were able to isolate five L. rhamnosus 35-specific sequences, including two phage-related ones. The primer pairs designed to amplify these five regions allowed us to develop rapid and highly specific PCR-based identification methods for the probiotic strain L. rhamnosus 35.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".