<i>In vitro</i>evaluation of the effect of linezolid and levofloxacin on<i>Bacillus anthracis</i>toxin production, spore formation and cell growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Owing to its ability to form spores and toxins, Bacillus anthracis is considered a bioterror agent. Although current therapeutic strategies can be effective, treatment does not prevent sporulation and toxin production. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the combined effect of a protein synthesis inhibitor and a bactericidal agent on B. anthracis toxin production, sporulation and cell growth. METHODS: Susceptibility and synergy titrations were conducted on B. anthracis Sterne and 03-0191 strains using linezolid and levofloxacin. The effect of antibiotic exposure on cell viability was evaluated using a continuous medium replacement model. In vitro static models were used to study the effect of linezolid and levofloxacin on sporulation and toxin production. Spores were quantified using the heat shock method. Toxin was quantified via commercial ELISA. RESULTS: Synergy titrations indicated that the combination was synergistic or indifferent; however, in all models antagonism was observed. In the spore model, linezolid resulted in the lowest sporulation rates, while combination therapy resulted in the highest. In the toxin model, linezolid prevented toxin production altogether. CONCLUSIONS: This study advances our understanding of the effects of combination therapy on B. anthracis infection. Used alone, linezolid therapy abolishes toxin production and reduces sporulation. These results suggest that studies using a step-wise approach using linezolid initially to stop sporulation and toxin production followed by levofloxacin to rapidly kill vegetative B. anthracis can be recommended.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".