Oxidative stress responses in biofilms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
), and reactive chlorine species (RCS) including sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and its active ingredient hypochlorous acid (HOCl), and chloramines. Bacteria encounter oxidizing agents in many different environments and from diverse sources. Among them, they can be produced endogenously by aerobic respiration or exogenously by the use of disinfectants and cleaning agents, as well as by the mammalian immune system. Furthermore, human activities like industrial effluent pollution, agricultural runoff, and environmental activities like volcanic eruptions and photosynthesis are also sources of oxidants. Despite their antimicrobial effects, bacteria have developed many mechanisms to resist the damage caused by these toxic molecules. Previous research has demonstrated that growing as a biofilm particularly enhances bacterial survival against oxidizing agents. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge on the resistance mechanisms employed by bacterial biofilms against ROS and RCS, focussing on the most important mechanisms, including the formation of biofilms in response to oxidative stressors, the biofilm matrix as a protective barrier, the importance of detoxifying enzymes, and increased protection within multi-species biofilm communities. Understanding the complexity of bacterial responses against oxidative stress will provide valuable insights for potential therapeutic interventions and biofilm control strategies in diverse bacterial species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".