Biomarker enrichment medium: A defined medium for metabolomic analysis of microbial pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbes have diverse metabolic capabilities and differences in these phenotypes are critical for differentiating strains, species, and broader taxa of microorganisms. Recent advances in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) allow researchers to track the complex combinations of molecules that are taken up by each cell type and to quantify the rates that individual metabolites enter or exit the cells. This metabolomics-based approach allows complex metabolic phenotypes to be captured in a single assay, enables computational models of microbial metabolism to be constructed, and can serve as a diagnostic approach for clinical microbiology. Unfortunately, metabolic phenotypes are directly affected by the molecular composition of the culture medium and many traditional media are subject to molecular-level heterogeneity. Herein, we show that commercially sourced Mueller Hinton (MH) medium, a Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) approved medium for clinical microbiology, has significant lot-to-lot and supplier-to-supplier variability in the concentrations of individual nutrients. We show that this variability does not affect microbial growth rates but does affect the metabolic phenotypes observed in vitro—including metabolic phenotypes that distinguish six common pathogens. To address this, we used a combination of isotope-labeling, substrate exclusion, and nutritional supplementation experiments using Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) medium to identify the specific nutrients used by the microbes to produce diagnostic biomarkers, and to formulate a Biomarker Enrichment Medium (BEM) as an alternative to complex undefined media for metabolomics research, clinical diagnostics, antibiotic susceptibility testing, and other applications where the analysis of stable microbial metabolic phenotypes is important.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".