Isolation and characterization of <i>Bacillus</i> spp. strains as potential probiotics for poultry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probiotics have become one of the potential solutions to global restriction on antibiotic use in food animal production. Bacillus species have been attractive probiotics partially due to their long-term stability during storage. In this study, 200 endospore-forming bacteria isolates were recovered from sourdough and the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of young broiler chicks. Based on the production of a series of exoenzymes and survivability under stress conditions similar to those in the poultry GIT, 42 isolates were selected and identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Seven strains with a profile of high enzymatic activities were further evaluated for sporulation efficiency, biofilm formation, compatibility among themselves (Bacillus spp.), and antagonistic effects against three bacteria pathogenic to poultry and humans: Enterococcus cecorum, Salmonella enterica, and Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli. The strains from sourdough were identified as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens whereas the ones from the chicks’ GIT were Bacillus subtilis. These strains demonstrated remarkable potential as probiotics for poultry.
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) | 0.000 | 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".