MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889028376 · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.01979

Effect of Pressure, Reconstituted RTE Meat Microbiota, and Antimicrobials on Survival and Post-pressure Growth of Listeria monocytogenes on Ham

2018· article· en· W2889028376 on OpenAlexafffund
Januana S. Teixeira, Lenka Repková, Michael G. Gänzle, Lynn M. McMullen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Microbiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsListeria monocytogenesListeriaFood scienceNisinMicrobiologyLeuconostocBiologyBacterial growthBacteriocinFood preservationAntimicrobialBacteriaChemistryLactobacillusFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressure treatment of ready-to-eat (RTE) meats extends the shelf life and reduces risks associated with Listeria monocytogenes. However, pressure reduces numbers of Listeria on ham by less than 5 log (CFU/g) and pressure effects on other meat microbiota are poorly documented. This study aimed to investigate the impact of pressure and meat microbiota, with or without antimicrobials, on survival of Listeria after refrigerated storage. Ham was inoculated with a 5-strain cocktail of L. monocytogenes alone or together with a cocktail of competitive meat microbiota consisting of Brochothrix thermosphacta, Carnobacterium maltaromaticum, Leuconostoc gelidum, and Lactobacillus sakei. Products were treated at 500 MPa at 5°C for 1 or 3 min, with or without rosemary extract or nisin. Surviving cells were differentially enumerated after pressure treatment and after 4 weeks of refrigerated storage; meat microbiota after 4 weeks of storage were also analysed by high throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons. Pressure treatment of Listeria on ham for 1 or 3 min reduced counts by 1 and 2 log (CFU/g), respectively; inactivation of other meat microbiota was comparable. Counts of Listeria increased by 3 and 1 log (CFU/g) during refrigerated storage after 1 or 3 min of treatment, respectively. The presence of meat microbiota did not influence pressure inactivation of Listeria but prevented growth of Listeria during refrigerated storage. The addition of rosemary extract did not influence inactivation of Listeria or the meat microbiota, or growth of microorganisms during storage. The combination of nisin with pressure treatment for 3 min reduced counts of Listeria and meat microbiota by >5 log (CFU/g); after 4 weeks of storage, counts were below the detection limit. In conclusion, pressure application alone does not eliminate Listeria or meat microbiota on RTE ham; however, the presence of meat microbiota prevents growth of Listeria on pressure treated ham and has a decisive influence on post pressure survival and growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MicrobiologySame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207