MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136456493 · doi:10.1101/2021.03.24.436903

Biofilm-forming capacity of <i>Escherichia coli</i> isolated from cattle and beef packing plants: relation to virulence attributes, stage of processing, antimicrobial interventions, and heat tolerance

2021· preprint· en· W3136456493 on OpenAlexafffund
Kim Stanford, Frances Tran, Peipei Zhang, Xianqin Yang

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersBeef Cattle Research Council
KeywordsBiofilmMicrobiologyEscherichia coliBiologyrpoSAntimicrobialVirulenceFood scienceBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the importance of biofilm formation in contamination of meat by pathogenic Escherichia coli at slaughter plants, drivers for biofilm have been unclear. To identify selection pressures for biofilm, we evaluated 745 ‘Top 7’ from cattle and 700 generic E. coli from two beef slaughter plants for motility, expression of curli and cellulose, and biofilm-forming potential. Top 7 were also screened for serogroup, stx1 , stx2 , eae and rpoS. Generic E. coli were compared by source (hide of carcass, hide-off carcass, processing equipment) before and after implementation of antimicrobial hurdles. The proportion of E. coli capable of forming biofilms was lowest (7.1%; P < 0.05) for cattle isolates and highest (87.3%; P < 0.05) from equipment. Only one enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) was an extremely-strong biofilm-former, in contrast to 73.4% of E. coli from equipment. Isolates from equipment after sanitation had a greater biofilm-forming capacity ( P < 0.001) than those before sanitation. Most Top 7 were motile and expressed curli, although these traits along with expression of cellulose and presence of rpoS were not necessary for biofilm formation. In contrast, isolates capable of forming biofilms on equipment were almost exclusively motile and able to express curli. Results of the present study indicate that cattle would rarely carry EHEC capable of making strong biofilms to slaughter plants. However, if biofilm-forming EHEC contaminated equipment, current antimicrobial hurdles would inadvertently perpetuate the most robust biofilm-forming strains. Accordingly, new and effective anti-biofilm hurdles are required for meat-processing equipment, to reduce future instances of food-borne disease. Importance As the majority of enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) are not capable of forming biofilms, sources were undetermined of the biofilm-forming EHEC isolated from ‘high-event periods’ in beef slaughter plants. This study demonstrated that sanitation procedures used on beef-processing equipment inadvertently select for survival of the most robust biofilm-forming strains of E. coli. Cattle only rarely carry EHEC capable of forming strong biofilms (1/745 isolates evaluated), but sanitation of equipment markedly increased ( P < 0.001) biofilm-forming capacity of E. coli . In contrast, chilling carcasses for 3 days at 0°C reduced ( P < 0.05) biofilm-forming capacity of E. coli . Consequently, an additional anti-biofilm hurdle for meat-processing equipment, perhaps involving cold exposure, is necessary to further reduce the risk of food-borne disease.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207