Helicobacter pylori Biofilm Formation Is Differentially Affected by Common Culture Conditions, and Proteins Play a Central Role in the Biofilm Matrix
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The concept of Helicobacter pylori biofilm formation is relatively new. To help provide a foundation for future biofilm studies, we characterized the biofilm formation ability of a common H. pylori lab strain, G27. The goal of this study was to evaluate biofilm formation by G27 in response to common culture conditions and to explore the biofilm matrix. Our results indicate that while various types of growth media did not dramatically affect biofilm formation, surface selection had a significant effect on the final biofilm mass. Furthermore, enzymatic assays and confocal microscopy revealed that proteins appear to be the primary structural component of the H. pylori extracellular matrix; extracellular DNA (eDNA) and polysaccharides were also present but appear to play a secondary role. Finally, we found that two well-characterized antibiofilm cationic peptides differentially affected early and late-stage biofilms. Together these results provide interesting avenues for future investigations that will seek to understand H. pylori biofilm formation. IMPORTANCE The study of H. pylori biofilm formation is still in its infancy. As such, there is great variability in how biofilm assays are performed across labs. While several groups have begun to investigate factors that influence H. pylori biofilm formation, it is not yet understood how H. pylori biofilm formation may vary based on commonly used conditions. These inconsistencies lead to difficulties in interpretation and comparison between studies. Here, we set out to characterize biofilm formation by a commonly available lab strain, G27. Our findings provide novel insight into optimal biofilm conditions, the biofilm matrix, and possible mechanisms to block or disrupt biofilm formation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".