MP03-09 THE EFFECT OF AN <i>ESCHERICHIA COLI</i> BACTERIAL URINARY INFECTION ISOLATE AND CIPROFLOXACIN ON CALCIUM UROLITHIASIS IN A <i>DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER</i> MODEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Basic Research & Pathophysiology I (MP03)1 Apr 2019MP03-09 THE EFFECT OF AN ESCHERICHIA COLI BACTERIAL URINARY INFECTION ISOLATE AND CIPROFLOXACIN ON CALCIUM UROLITHIASIS IN A DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER MODEL Jennifer Bjazevic*, Kaitlin F. Al, Jaswanth Gorla, Hassan Razvi, and Jeremy P. Burton Jennifer Bjazevic*Jennifer Bjazevic* More articles by this author , Kaitlin F. AlKaitlin F. Al More articles by this author , Jaswanth GorlaJaswanth Gorla More articles by this author , Hassan RazviHassan Razvi More articles by this author , and Jeremy P. BurtonJeremy P. Burton More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000554941.03582.7eAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Exposure to both urinary bacteria and antibiotics may impact the formation of calcium-based stone disease. Prior epidemiological studies have shown a strong association between the development of stone disease and a history of culture-proven urinary tract infections treated with antibiotics. We aimed to further evaluate the potential effect of a non-urease producing bacteria isolate from a urinary tract infection, and treatment with the antibiotic ciprofloxacin, on the formation of calcium oxalate stones utilizing a Drosophila melanogaster (DM) fly model. METHODS: DM flies were treated with a combination of a non-urease producing strain of Escherichia coli UTI89 and 0.1% sodium oxalate food for the duration of the 14-day assay (n=30 per group). Treatment with ciprofloxacin occurred on day 5-7 of the assay at a sub-minimum inhibitory concentration of 0.2 μg/mL. DM control groups without the addition of UTI89 or ciprofloxacin were included for comparison. Inoculation with UTI89 was confirmed by culturing pulverized flies on lysogeny broth agar plates on days 1-5. Stone burden was assessed with a survival curve analysis and measured pixel intensity of dissected Malpighian tubules under birefringent microscopy. RESULTS: UTI89 was cultured at a minimum concentration of 3x103 colony forming units/fly for up to three days post exposure in treated flies. There was a trend towards decreased survival in oxalate food treated flies for days 15-35; however, UTI89 treatment did not affect fly survival. Preliminary results suggest that at day 7 exposure to UTI89 increased calcium oxalate crystal production in Malpighian tubules (p=0.001), and treatment with ciprofloxacin attenuated this effect (p=0.012, Figure 1). Similar trends were observed at day 14; however, these results did not reach statistical significance (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings further suggest that exposure to both a non-urease producing E. coli and ciprofloxacin may impact calcium oxalate stone formation in a DM urolithiasis model. Further investigation is required in order to confirm these results and delineate the potential mechanisms by which urinary pathogens and antibiotics may affect calcium-based stone formation. Source of Funding: AUA Urology Care Foundation Research Scholar Award London, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e23-e24 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jennifer Bjazevic* More articles by this author Kaitlin F. Al More articles by this author Jaswanth Gorla More articles by this author Hassan Razvi More articles by this author Jeremy P. Burton More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".