A critical issue on microbiological cut-off value of ampicillin resistance in<i>Lactiplantibacillus plantarum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Comprehensive evaluation of antibiotic susceptibility patterns in Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains isolated from grape marc, based on genomic and phenotypic assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the antibiotic resistance-susceptibility patterns of 20 L. plantarum strains for 16 antibiotics. Genomes of relevant strains were sequenced for in silico assessment and comparative genomic analysis. Results showed high MIC values for spectinomycin, vancomycin, and carbenicillin, indicating natural resistance to these antibiotics. Besides, these strains revealed MIC values for ampicillin higher than previously established by the EFSA, indicating the possible presence of acquired resistance genes in the genomes. However, genomic analysis by complete genome sequencing did not reveal presence of ampicillin resistance genes. CONCLUSION: Comparative genomic analysis between our strains and other L. plantarum genomes present in the literature showed several substantial genomic differences, and suggested the need to adjust the cut-off value for ampicillin in L. plantarum. However, further sequence analysis will reveal how these strains have acquired antibiotic resistance.
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 | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".