MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982246626 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2246

2568. Mechanisms of a Specific Probiotic Comprised of Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei LBC80R and L. rhamnosus CLR2 that Interferes with Clostridioides difficile 20291 Toxin Production

2019· article· en· W2982246626 on OpenAlexaff
Sathursha Gunaratnam, Carine Diarra, Patrick D. Paquette, Noam Ship, Mathieu Millette, Monique Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsBio-K+ International (Canada)Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbioticLactobacillus rhamnosusMicrobiologyToxinLactobacillus caseiClostridium difficile toxin BClostridium difficile toxin ALactobacillus acidophilusAntibiotic-associated diarrheaDiarrheaBiologyMedicineClostridium difficileAntibioticsBacteriaFood scienceFermentationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) result from antibiotic use and cause severe diarrhea (C. difficile-associated diarrhea, CDAD) which is life-threatening and costly. A specific probiotic containing Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei LBC80R and L. rhamnosus CLR2 (Bio-K+) has demonstrated benefits in preventing CDI and has a strong inhibitory effect on the growth of several nosocomial C. difficile strains in vitro. Many Lactobacilli can inhibit CD growth though lactic acidification. Here, we have investigated novel acid-independent mechanisms by which these strains impair C. difficile virulence. Methods The hypervirulent strain C. difficile R20291 was co-cultured anaerobically with Bio-K+ probiotic strains in various media and glucose concentrations (5 g/L, 3 g/L, 0 g/L), for 24 hours at 37°C. Parameters such as Log CFU, pH, Toxin A and B, cell cytotoxicity were measured. Statistical comparisons using ANOVA one-way was performed in order to determine whether the groups were significantly different. Results At 5 g/L glucose, no C. difficile toxin was produced and co-culture with these lactobacilli resulted in potent acidification and growth inhibition. At 3 g/L glucose, C. difficile toxin production occurred and acidification by the lactobacilli resulted in growth inhibition as well as >99% reduced Toxin A and B production. In the absence of glucose and a starting pH of 7.0, TY broth, the lactobacilli did not acidify the medium and C. difficile growth was normal yet Toxin A and B production was partially reduced at, 20% and 41% lower. Toxin B from the supernatant of C. difficile grown in TY was cytotoxic to human fibroblast cells, but this was less cytotoxic when co-cultured with the Lactobacilli. Conclusion These results suggest that the combination of L. acidophilus CL1285, L. casei LBC80R and L. rhamnosus CLR2 interferes with C. difficile pathogenesis through: 1) inhibition of C. difficile growth (via lactic acid secretion), 2) reduced toxin A/B synthesis and (3) toxin neutralization. These results might explain the strain specificity of Bio-K+ probiotic bacteria in potentially preventing C. difficile-associated diarrhea in antibiotic treated patients. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 score0.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207