Quantitative assessment of individual populations within polymicrobial biofilms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Selecting appropriate tools providing reliable quantitative measures of individual populations in biofilms is critical as we now recognize their true polymicrobial and heterogeneous nature. Here, plate count, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (q-PCR) and peptide nucleic acid probe-fluorescence in situ hybridization (PNA-FISH) were employed to quantitate cystic fibrosis multispecies biofilms. Growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Inquilinus limosus and Dolosigranulum pigrum was assessed in dual- and triple-species consortia under oxygen and antibiotic stress. Quantification methods, that were previously optimized and validated in planktonic consortia, were not always in agreement when applied in multispecies biofilms. Discrepancies in culture and molecular outcomes were observed, particularly for triple-species consortia and antibiotic-stressed biofilms. Some differences were observed, such as the higher bacterial counts obtained by q-PCR and/or PNA-FISH (≤4 log10 cells/cm2) compared to culture. But the discrepancies between PNA-FISH and q-PCR data (eg D. pigrum limited assessment by q-PCR) demonstrate the effect of biofilm heterogeneity in method’s reliability. As the heterogeneity in biofilms is a reflection of a myriad of variables, tailoring an accurate picture of communities´ changes is crucial. This work demonstrates that at least two, but preferentially three, quantification techniques are required to obtain reliable measures and take comprehensive analysis of polymicrobial biofilm-associated 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".