Xenobiotic Effects of Chlorine Dioxide to Escherichia coli O157:H7 on Non-host Tomato Environment Revealed by Transcriptional Network Modeling: Implications to Adaptation and Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 is one of the major causing agents of outbreaks associated with fresh fruits and vegetables. Gaseous chlorine dioxide (ClO2) has been reported to be an effective intervention to eliminate bacteria on fresh produce. Although a remarkable scenario was reported in E. coli exposed to low dose of ClO2, regulatory mechanisms coordinating ClO2 exposure and potential bacterial adaptation remind unclear. This study examined the temporal transcriptome of E. coli O157:H7 during exposure to different doses of ClO2 in order to elucidate the genetic mechanisms of how E. coli survive under these harsh environmental conditions. Three doses of 1, 5 and 10 µg ClO2 per gram of tomato fruits cause different effects depending on dose and exposure time. First hour of 1 and 5 µg ClO2 exposure caused only partial killing, with significant growth reduction starting at the second hour, while without further significant growth reduction at third hour. However, 10 µg ClO2 exposure led to massive bacterial cell death at 1 hour, with further increased cell death at 2 and 3 hours. First hour of 1 µg ClO2 exposure caused activation of primary defense and survival mechanisms; but defense response was attenuated during the second and third hours. Upon 5 µg ClO2 treatment, transcriptional networks showed massive downregulation of pathogenesis and stress response genes at the first hour of exposure, with the number of differentially expressed genes to be decreased at the second and third hours. In contrast, more genes were downregulated when the bacteria were exposed to 10 µg ClO2 at the first hour, with the number of both up and downregulated genes to be decreased at the second hour. However, a total of 810 genes were uniquely upregulated at the third hour when the bacteria were treated with 10 µg ClO2, suggesting that the potency of xenobiotic effects had led to potential adaptation. This study provided important knowledge in selection of target molecules for eliminating the bacterial contamination in fresh produce without overlooking potential risks of adaptation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".