MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255100376 · doi:10.1139/w01-013

Comparison of the activity spectra against pathogens of bacterial strains producing a mutacin or a lantibiotic

2001· article· en· W4255100376 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hélène Morency, Marilaine Mota‐Meira, Gisèle LaPointe, Christophe Lacroix, Marc C. Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLantibioticsMicrobiologyBacteriocinCampylobacter jejuniAntibioticsBiologyNisinAntibiotic resistanceNeisseria gonorrhoeaeAntimicrobialBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increase of drug resistance among bacterial pathogens is currently a major threat in hospital settings. New and more efficient antibiotic compounds have to be developed to fight infectious diseases. In the present work, a deferred antagonism test was used to determine the activity of different bacterial strains producing either a mutacin or a lantibiotic against bacterial pathogens. The mutacins A, B, C, D, I, K, L, M, and nisins A and Z were active against all enterococci tested. Mutacins A and B, and nisins A and Z inhibited all the staphylococci tested. Except for the strains producing mutacins P, Q, and X, all the other producing strains inhibited the streptococci tested. Mutacins A, B, I, J, T, nisins A and Z, and epidermin inhibited the two antibiotic-resistant strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae tested. Mutacins A, B, C, D, and nisins A and Z inhibited Campylobacter jejuni and Helicobacter pylori. Thus, the wide activity spectra of nisin A and Z are confirmed. These results also indicate that many of the mutacins, especially those of groups A, B, C, D, I, J, K, L, M, and T, could be candidates for further development as useful antibiotics.Key words: mutacin, lantibiotic, bacteriocin, antibiotic.

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)0.000
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 score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations51
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207