Weakest link dynamics predict apparent antibiotic interactions in a model cross-feeding community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the growing global threat of antimicrobial resistance, novel strategies are required for combatting resistant pathogens. Combination therapy, wherein multiple drugs are used to treat an infection, has proven highly successful in the treatment of cancer and HIV. However, this practice has proven challenging for the treatment of bacterial infections due to difficulties in selecting the correct combinations and dosages. An additional challenge in infection treatment is the polymicrobial nature of many infections, which may respond to antibiotics differently than a monoculture pathogen. This study tests whether patterns of antibiotic interactions (synergy, antagonism, or independence/additivity) in monoculture can be used to predict antibiotic interactions in an obligate cross-feeding co-culture. Using our previously described weakest link hypothesis, we hypothesized antibiotic interactions in co-culture based on the interactions we observed in monoculture. We then compared our predictions to observed antibiotic interactions in co-culture. We tested the interactions between ten previously identified antibiotic combinations using checkerboard assays. Although our antibiotic combinations interacted differently than predicted in our monocultures, our monoculture results were generally sufficient to predict co-culture patterns based solely on the weakest link hypothesis. These results suggest that combination therapy for cross-feeding multispecies infections may be successfully designed based on antibiotic interaction patterns for their component species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".