Responses of Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes to ozone treatment on non-host tomato: Efficacy of intervention and evidence of induced acclimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the continuous rise of foodborne illnesses caused by the consumption of raw fruits and vegetables, effective post-harvest anti-microbial strategies are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anti-microbial efficacy of ozone (O3) against two common causes of fresh produce contamination, the Gram-negative Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Gram-positive Listeria monocytogenes, and to relate its effects to potential mechanisms of xenobiosis by transcriptional network modeling. The study on non-host tomato environment correlated the dose × time aspects of xenobiosis by examining the correlation between bacterial survival in terms of log-reduction and defense responses at the level of gene expression. In E. coli, low (1 μg O3/g of fruit) and moderate (2 μg O3/g of fruit) doses caused insignificant reduction in survival, while high dose (3 μg/g of fruit) caused significant reduction in survival in a time-dependent manner. In L. monocytogenes, moderate dose caused significant reduction even with short-duration exposure. Distinct responses to O3 xenobiosis between E. coli and L. monocytogenes are likely related to differences in membrane and cytoplasmic structure and components. Transcriptome profiling by RNA-Seq showed that primary defenses in E. coli were attenuated after exposure to a low dose, while the responses at moderate dose were characterized by massive upregulation of pathogenesis and stress-related genes, which implied the activation of defense responses. More genes were downregulated during the first hour at high dose, with a large number of such genes getting significantly upregulated after 2 hr and 3 hr. This trend suggests that prolonged exposure led to potential adaptation. In contrast, massive downregulation of genes was observed in L. monocytogenes regardless of dose and exposure duration, implying a mechanism of defense distinct from that of E. coli. The nature of bacterial responses revealed by this study should guide the selection of xenobiotic agents for eliminating bacterial contamination on fresh produce without overlooking the 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".