MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785253800 · doi:10.1038/srep42918

Interaction of Cutibacterium ( formerly Propionibacterium) acnes with bone cells: a step toward understanding bone and joint infection development

2017· article· en· W2785253800 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Ghislain Aubin, Marc Baud’huin, Jean‐Philippe Lavigne, Régis Brion, F. Gouin, Didier Lepelletier, Cédric Jacqueline, Dominique Heymann, Karim Asehnoune, Stéphane Corvec

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de PoitiersUniversité de NantesCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de RennesCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsPropionibacterium acnesMicrobiologyPathogenBiologyMultilocus sequence typingBacteriaGeneGeneticsGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Propionibacterium acnes) is recognized as a pathogen in foreign-body infections (arthroplasty or spinal instrumentation). To date, the direct impact of C. acnes on bone cells has never been explored. The clade of 11 C. acnes clinical isolates was determined by MLST. Human osteoblasts and osteoclasts were infected by live C. acnes. The whole genome sequence of six isolates of this collection was analyzed. CC36 C. acnes strains were significantly less internalized by osteoblasts and osteoclasts than CC18 and CC28 C. acnes strains (p ≤ 0.05). The CC18 C. acnes ATCC6919 isolate could survive intracellularly for at least 96 hours. C. acnes significantly decreased the resorption ability of osteoclasts with a major impact by the CC36 strain (p ≤ 0.05). Genome analysis revealed 27 genes possibly linked to these phenotypic behaviors. We showed a direct impact of C. acnes on bone cells, providing new explanations about the development of C. acnes foreign-body infections.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations67
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207