Antibacterial electrospun chitosan‐based nanofibers: A bacterial membrane perforator
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the antibacterial action of chitosan‐based nanofibers ( CNF s) obtained by the electrospinning process on the permeability of bacterial membranes. The bactericidal efficiency of CNF s was first determined against Gram‐negative Escherichia coli and Salmonella Typhimurium, and Gram‐positive Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria innocua bacteria as a baseline. The results strongly suggest that CNF s interact with the negatively charged bacterial cell wall causing membrane rupture and inducing leakage of intracellular components among which are proteins and DNA . Results clearly indicate that the release of such components after contact with CNF s is an indication of membrane permeabilization and perforation, as pore formation was observed in transmission electron microscopy ( TEM ). This work suggests a plausible antibacterial mechanism of action of CNF s and also provides clear evidence in favor of chitosan as a bacterial membrane disruptor and perforator. As a result, CNF s can find promising applications as bioactive food packaging materials capable to extend shelf life of food products while inhibiting the spread of alteration flora and foodborne pathogens.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it