MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112764819 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.15546

<i>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</i> MP108: Toxicological evaluation

2020· article· en· W3112764819 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Zhang, Barry Lynch, Jian Zhao, Guo Yu, Alastair Mak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactobacillus rhamnosusGenotoxicityAmes testProbioticBiologyIn vivoLactobacillusMicrobiologyFood scienceToxicityMicronucleus testBacteriaChemistrySalmonellaBiotechnologyFermentationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lyophilized powder of Lactobacillus rhamnosus MP108, a strain isolated from infant feces, has been developed for potential as a probiotic. To assess safety, three genetic toxicity studies (Ames, in vivo mouse micronucleus, and in vivo mouse spermatocyte chromosome aberration assays) and one 90-day oral rat toxicity study were conducted. Lactobacillus rhamnosus MP108 had no activity in the Ames assay, with or without metabolic activation, up to the highest dose tested (5000 µg/plate). Also, no evidence of genotoxicity was observed in the two in vivo genotoxicity assays up to the maximum dose tested of 5.6 g/kg body weight. Feeding of L. rhamnosus MP108 to SD rats at doses of 0, 0.25, 0.5, or 1.5 g/kg body weight/day had no statistically or biologically significant effects on any of the parameters measured. An evaluation of Lactobacillus spp. generally, and L. rhamnosus specifically, showed no indication of concern for translocation or pathogenicity. The results of the toxicology studies showed no indications for safety concerns. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Lactobacillus rhamnosus MP108 is a bacterium that shows potential as a probiotic. While this bacterium has been used in food and food production, a series of studies were conducted to provide further assurance that this particular strain of L. rhamnosus is safe.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207