Transcriptome analysis of the <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> response to a specific lactobacilli probiotic formulation: explanations for its mechanisms of action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. A probiotic formulation (Bio-K+) comprised of Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lacticaseibacillus casei LBC80R, and Lacti. rhamnosus CLR2 strains have been shown to reduce the incidence of CDI and antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). This research aims to therefore elucidate the mechanism of action of the three probiotic strained against C. difficile R20291, independently of the acidification of the environment. . METHODS AND RESULTS: Antitoxin activity was evaluated using ELISA method and the expression of C. difficile genes was evaluated using transcriptomic analysis in co-culture assays conducted in a bioreactor allowing precise control of the pH. The fermentation results demonstrated a decrease for toxin A and many genes directly related to C. difficile virulence were underexpressed in the co-cultures. CONCLUSIONS: The lactobacilli tested could have a role in the motility, the quorum sensing (QS), the survival of the spores, and the germination potential of the spores, which are essential elements for the virulence of C. difficile. .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".