Determination of antimicrobial effect of protamine by transmission electron microscopy and SDS PAGE on <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> isolates from diabetic foot infection.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diabetic foot infection is one of the major complications of diabetes leading to lower limb amputations. Isolation and identification of bacteria causing diabetic foot infection, determination of antibiotic resistance, antimicrobial potential of protamine by electron microscopy and SDS-PAGE analysis, arethe aims of this study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: was checked by minimum inhibitory concentration in 96 well micro-titer plates. The isolates were grown in bactericidal concentration of protamine on plates to isolate mutants. Effect of protamine on protein expression was checked by SDS- PAGE and ultra-structural morphological changes by transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: . SDS-PAGE analysis revealed that protamine can suppress expression of various virulence proteins and electron micrographs indicated condensation of cytoplasm and accumulation of protamine in cytoplasm without damaging the cell membrane. CONCLUSION: were the major isolates expressing multi-drug resistance and protamine sulfate represented good antimicrobial potential.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".