Bacteriocin-Based Synergetic Consortia: a Promising Strategy to Enhance Antimicrobial Activity and Broaden the Spectrum of Inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reuterin and bacteriocins, including microcin J25, pediocin PA-1, nisin were produced and purified with >90% purity. Using the broth-based checkerboard assay the interaction between these compounds (synergetic, additive, or antagonistic) was assessed. By combining different natural antimicrobials with different modes of action and structure (reuteirn, microcin J25, pediocin PA-1, and organic acids), we successfully developed five different synergetic consortia with improved antimicrobial activity and a broad spectrum of inhibition. These consortia were shown to be effective against a large panel of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms as well as clinically important multidrug-resistance bacteria. Moreover, because the lower concentrations of bacteriocins and reuterin are used in the synergetic consortia, there is a limited risk of toxicity and resistance development for these compounds.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".