Behavior of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes during fermentation and storage of camel yogurt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to its nutritional and therapeutic properties, camel milk has the ability to suppress the growth of a wide range of foodborne pathogens, but there is a lack of information regarding the behavior of these pathogens in products such as yogurt produced from camel milk. The objective of the current study was to investigate the behavior of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7 during manufacture and storage of camel yogurt. Camel milk inoculated with L. monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 was fermented at 43° C for 5h using freeze-dried lactic acid bacteria (LAB) starter cultures (Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus) and stored at 4 or 10 °C for 14 d. Camel milk inoculated with L. monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 without starter culture was also prepared. During fermentation, the numbers of L. monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 increased 0.3 and 1.6 log cfu/mL, respectively, in the presence of LAB, and by 0.3 and 2.7 log cfu/mL in the absence of LAB. During storage at 4 or 10 °C, L. monocytogenes increased 0.8 to 1.2 log cfu/mL by 14 d in camel milk without LAB, but in the presence of LAB, the numbers of L. monocytogenes were reduced by 1.2 to 1.7 log cfu/mL by 14 d. Further, E. coli O157:H7 numbers in camel milk were reduced by 3.4 to 3.5 log cfu/mL in the absence of LAB, but E. coli O157:H7 was not detected (6.3 log cfu/mL reduction) by 7d in camel yogurt made with LAB and stored at either temperature. Although camel milk contains high concentrations of natural antimicrobials, L. monocytogenes was able to tolerate these compounds in camel yogurt stored at refrigerator temperatures. Therefore, appropriate care should be taken during production of yogurt from camel milk to minimize the potential for postprocess contamination by this and other foodborne pathogens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".