Probiotic treatment by indigenous bacteria decreases mortality without disturbing the natural microbiota of <i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing is revealing the complex interactive networks of host-bacteria interactions, as it is now possible to screen in detail the microbiota harbored by a host. This study investigated the influence of a probiotic treatment on the survival and microbiota of brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis), focusing on its disturbance of the natural microbiota (dysbiosis). The results indicated that an indigenous probiotic strain (identified as Rhodococcus sp.) colonized neither the fish skin mucus nor the water following the probiotic treatment. Instead, the probiotic strain was detected only in the biofilm of the test tank. Nevertheless, a substantial beneficial effect of the probiotic treatment was observed: the population of the pathogen Flavobacterium psychrophilum decreased in the treated tank water. This study clearly shows that the indigenous strain chosen for the probiotic treatment did not disturb the natural fish skin mucus microbiota but acted directly through the production system to control the growth of the pathogen and, as a consequence, to enhance fish survival.
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) | 0.000 | 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".