Comparison of Antibacterial Activity of the Spent Substrate of Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinula edodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Nowadays, the uncontrolled use of antibiotics has created the problem of bacterial resistance to them, what has motivated the search for new alternatives of drug for the treatment of bacterial diseases. Here, we compare antimicrobial activity of spent substrate of mushroom <em>Pleurotus ostreatus</em> and <em>Lentinula edodes</em>, against <em>Escherichia coli</em>,<em> Salmonella tiphymorium</em>,<em> Staphylococcus aureus</em> and <em>Micrococcus luteus</em>. We designed two mixtures, barley straw to be used as a substrate of cultivation of mushroom <em>Pleurotus ostreatus</em> and oats or cedar for the cultivation of mushroom <em>Lentinula edodes</em>; and were obtained aqueous extracts from spent substrates; extracts were tested for antibacterial activity. The protocol was a completely randomized assay with a factorial arrangement design. The data were analyzed with PROC GLM, SAS. The results showed that in the case of <em>Escherichia coli</em> the greatest inhibition zone was of 12.66 mm at a concentration of 6 mg mL<sup>-1</sup>, with treatment of <em>Lentinula edodes</em>/Cedar; <em>Salmonella tiphymorium</em> showed a greatest inhibition zone of 31.10 mm to a concentration of 5.12 mg mL<sup>-1</sup>, with treatment of <em>Pleurotus ostreatus</em>/Barley straw; <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> showed a greatest inhibition zone of 9.33 mm to a concentration of 100 mg mL<sup>-1</sup>, with the treatment of <em>Lentinula edodes</em>/Cedar and finaly, <em>Micrococcus luteus </em>showed a greatest inhibition zone of 15.00 mm to a concentration of 50 mg mL<sup>-1</sup>, with the treatment <em>Lentinula edodes</em>/Oats. In conclusion, the results suggest that it is possible to use indistinctly the spent substrate of <em>Pleurotus ostreatus</em> and <em>Lentinula edodes</em> as source of extracts with antibacterial activity.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".