Predicting the dynamics of bacterial growth inhibition by ribosome-targeting antibiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how antibiotics inhibit bacteria can help to reduce antibiotic use and hence avoid antimicrobial resistance-yet few theoretical models exist for bacterial growth inhibition by a clinically relevant antibiotic treatment regimen. In particular, in the clinic, antibiotic treatment is time-dependent. Here, we use a theoretical model, previously applied to steady-state bacterial growth, to predict the dynamical response of a bacterial cell to a time-dependent dose of ribosome-targeting antibiotic. Our results depend strongly on whether the antibiotic shows reversible transport and/or low-affinity ribosome binding ('low-affinity antibiotic') or, in contrast, irreversible transport and/or high affinity ribosome binding ('high-affinity antibiotic'). For low-affinity antibiotics, our model predicts that growth inhibition depends on the duration of the antibiotic pulse, and can show a transient period of very fast growth following removal of the antibiotic. For high-affinity antibiotics, growth inhibition depends on peak dosage rather than dose duration, and the model predicts a pronounced post-antibiotic effect, due to hysteresis, in which growth can be suppressed for long times after the antibiotic dose has ended. These predictions are experimentally testable and may be of clinical significance.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".