Characterization of Four Novel Bacteriophages Isolated from British Columbia for Control of Non-typhoidal Salmonella in Vitro and on Sprouting Alfalfa Seeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alfalfa sprouts have been linked to numerous North American outbreaks of Salmonella in recent years. Conventionally, treatments involving chlorine, heat, and irradiation are used for alfalfa seed sanitation. However, such treatments may be highly variable in their efficacy for pathogen control and/or detrimental to sprout quality, therefore negatively perceived by consumers advocating for natural alternatives. The usage of bacteriophages for pathogen control in sprouts has been previously explored, although with conflicting and inconsistent results. Lytic phages, viral predators of bacteria, represent an attractive approach as they provide several advantages compared to conventional treatments, such as their high specificity for bacterial targets and their ubiquity in nature. In this study, four Salmonella phages were isolated from British Columbia, Canada and characterized with respect to host range, burst size, latent period, and environmental stability to assess their potential to control Salmonella. Phage isolate SI1 showed the greatest host range, highest burst size and shortest latent period, greatest stability across all pH and temperatures and was the most effective in control of S. Enteritidis in vitro. Therefore, SI1 was chosen for treatment of sprouting alfalfa seeds artificially contaminated with S. Enteritidis with a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of ~110 PFU/CFU. A significant (p0.05). It was further demonstrated that the sprout yield was not significantly (p>0.05) affected by phage treatment. These results highlight the potential of phages recovered from the British Columbia environment for use as biocontrol agents against Salmonella, although differing efficacies in vitro was observed. Moreover, the effectiveness of SI1 to significantly (p<0.05) control Salmonella on sprouting alfalfa seeds on day one of treatment was demonstrated. Although promising, future work should aim to optimize this treatment to achieve more effective, and longer lasting, biocontrol of Salmonella in sprouting alfalfa seeds.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".