Growth phase-dependent responses of an in vitro gut microbiome to metformin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro gut microbiota models are often used to study drug-microbiome interaction. Similar to culturing individual microbial strains, the biomass accumulation of in vitro gut microbiota follows a logistic growth curve. Current studies on in vitro gut microbiome responses introduce drug stimulation during different growth stages, e.g. lag phase or stationary phase. However, in vitro gut microbiota in different growth phases may respond differently to same stimuli. Therefore, in this study, we used a 96-deep well plate-based culturing model (MiPro) to culture the human gut microbiota. Metformin, as the stimulus, was added at the lag, log and stationary phases of growth. Microbiome samples were collected at different time points for optical density and metaproteomic functional analysis. Results show that in vitro gut microbiota responded differently to metformin added during different growth phases, in terms of the growth curve, alterations of taxonomic and functional compositions. The addition of drugs at log phase leads to the greatest decline of bacterial growth. Metaproteomic analysis suggested that the strength of the metformin effect on the gut microbiome functional profile was ranked as lag phase > log phase > stationary phase. Our results showed that metformin added at lag phase resulted in a significantly reduced abundance of the Clostridiales order as well as an increased abundance of the Bacteroides genus, which was different from stimulation during the rest of the growth phase. Metformin also resulted in alterations of several pathways, including energy production and conversion, lipid transport and metabolism, translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis. Our results indicate that the timing for drug stimulation should be considered when studying drug-microbiome interactions in vitro.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".