MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903283575 · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.02824

The Impact of Chitosan-Divergicin Film on Growth of Listeria monocytogenes in Cold-Smoked Salmon

2018· article· en· W2903283575 on OpenAlexaff
Rajaa Benabbou, Muriel Subirade, M. Desbiens, Ismaı̈l Fliss

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Microbiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and FoodUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsListeria monocytogenesSmoked fishChitosanFood scienceListeriaMicrobiologyChemistryBiologyFisheryBacteriaFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of chitosan film, with bacteriocin divergicin 35 incorporate, on growth of Listeria monocytogenes in Cold smoked salmon. The simples of Cold-smoked wild salmon were inoculated with Listeria monocytogenes and treated with chitosan (100 kDa, 94.7% de-acetylated) and divergicin M35 was stored for three weeks at 4–8°C. The compounds were applied to the fish flesh in the form of solution or dried film. The film reduced L. monocytogenes to below the detection limit (<50 cfu/g) and kept total counts below 104 cfu per g compared to 109 cfu per g in control samples while the effectiveness of the solution was very limited. The inhibitory activity of the film lasted for three weeks, while the solution had no effect on L. monocytogenes counts measured on day 14. The film provided a better preservation of fish color (redness) and firmness than others treatments, while the solution had little impact on these parameters. It kept the volatile basic nitrogen (17.5 mg N/100 g) below the control value 29.9 mg N/100 g. Divergicin-loaded chitosan film thus may represent an interesting alternative for the bio-preservation of cold-smoked fish.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MicrobiologySame topicNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingFrench-language works237,207