An improved susceptibility test based on Amberlite reveals the potential antilisterial activity of fosfomycin in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Listeria monocytogenes is resistant to fosfomycin in vitro but is susceptible in vivo due to increased expression of positive regulator factor A (PrfA) and its dependent factor, hexose phosphate transporter (Hpt), upon infection of host cells. Amberlite, a polymeric adsorbent resin, could induce PrfA-dependent gene expression and thus, in theory, improve the sensitivity of L. monocytogenes to fosfomycin in vitro. In the current study, an improved susceptibility test based on Amberlite was developed using reference strains. Thirty-five clinical isolates were further examined to verify those preliminary results. Briefly, Amberlite increased in vitro fosfomycin sensitivity of all strains. Optimal Amberlite concentrations, as evaluated through the expression of phospholipase B (PlcB) and Hpt, were 10% and 15% (w/v) in agar media and 3% (w/v) in broth media. Mueller-Hinton (MH) medium, tryptone soya (TS) medium, and brain heart infusion (BHI) medium were used to verify the results in the control strains using agar dilution and broth micro- and macro-dilution methods. Better listerial growth was shown in TS and BHI than in MH. Both broth dilution methods yielded lower minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of fosfomycin than the agar dilution method. The MIC of fosfomycin for 35 clinical isolates was 2-32 μg/mL, suggesting improved susceptibility. In conclusion, in vitro sensitivity of L. monocytogenes to fosfomycin was substantially improved in the presence of 3% Amberlite-supplemented TSB or BHIB and the broth microdilution method. This improved method revealed the potential antilisterial activity of fosfomycin in vitro and could facilitate the therapy of listeriosis using fosfomycin.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".