MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734554187 · doi:10.7554/elife.32581

Resilience of small intestinal beneficial bacteria to the toxicity of soybean oil fatty acids

2018· article· en· W2734554187 on OpenAlexaff
Sara C. Di Rienzi, Juliet Jacobson, Elizabeth A. Kennedy, Mary Elizabeth Bell, Qiaojuan Shi, Jillian L. Waters, Peter Lawrence, J. Thomas Brenna, Robert A. Britton, Jens Walter, Ruth E. Ley

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMax-Planck-GesellschaftNIH Office of the DirectorLife Sciences Research Foundation
KeywordsBiologyMicrobiologyLactobacillusLinoleic acidBacteriaFatty acidGut floraPolyunsaturated fatty acidMicrobiomeIn vitroFood scienceBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past century, soybean oil (SBO) consumption in the United States increased dramatically. The main SBO fatty acid, linoleic acid (18:2), inhibits in vitro the growth of lactobacilli, beneficial members of the small intestinal microbiota. Human-associated lactobacilli have declined in prevalence in Western microbiomes, but how dietary changes may have impacted their ecology is unclear. Here, we compared the in vitro and in vivo effects of 18:2 on Lactobacillus reuteri and L. johnsonii. Directed evolution in vitro in both species led to strong 18:2 resistance with mutations in genes for lipid biosynthesis, acid stress, and the cell membrane or wall. Small-intestinal Lactobacillus populations in mice were unaffected by chronic and acute 18:2 exposure, yet harbored both 18:2- sensitive and resistant strains. This work shows that extant small intestinal lactobacilli are protected from toxic dietary components via the gut environment as well as their own capacity to evolve resistance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207