Lactobacillus acidophilus impairs the establishment of pathogens in a subgingival multispecies biofilm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study evaluated the antibiofilm effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus within a subgingival multispecies biofilm. Lactobacillus acidophilus (La5) at 1 × 10 2 , 1 × 10 4 , and 1 × 10 6 were included at the beginning of biofilm formation, which lasted 7 days. The biofilms comprised 33 periodontitis-related bacterial species and the Calgary Biofilm device was used. At the end, DNA–DNA hybridization (checkerboard) was performed. A Kruskal–Wallis test followed by a Dunn post hoc test were performed ( p ≤ 0.05). La5 at 1 × 10 4 and 1 × 10 6 reduced the total counts of biofilm and the proportions of red and green complexes when compared to the control biofilm without La5 ( p ≤ 0.05). La5 at 1 × 10 4 increased the proportions of Actinomyces complex compared to the controls ( p ≤ 0.05). Both La5 at 1 × 10 4 and 1 × 10 6 decreased levels of 20 and 14 distinct species, respectively, including Porphyromonas gingivalis , Prevotella intermedia , Fusobacterium nucleatum polymorphum , and Parvimonas micra compared to the control ( p ≤ 0.05). Only La5 at 1 × 10 4 reduced the levels of Tannerella forsythia , Fusobacterium periodonticum , and Aggregatibacter actinomycetencomytans compared to the control ( p ≤ 0.05). L. acidophilus inhibited establishing periodontic pathogens from red complex such as P. gingivalis and T. forsythia in a subgingival multispecies biofilm.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".