Effects of feces storage conditions for host-microbiota screenings in C. elegans
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims Current research on host-gut microbiota interactions is hindered by almost infinite bacterial combinations depending on intrinsic characteristics, environment, and health status, which prevents large-scale screenings in mammals. For these reasons, the bacterivore model organism C. elegans has been developed to test the effects of gut microbiota extracts from mammals. This study tested whether storage conditions of mouse feces and fecal extracts modify normal C. elegans healthspan. Methods Feces from mice were processed for microbiota extraction after collection or after one or twelve months at -80 °C and compared to microbiota extracted six months before and left at room temperature. Extracts were probed for bacterial composition, viability, and nutritional content and tested in synchronized wild-type (strain N2) worms for food preferences and intake, development, fat accumulation, brood size, and maximal lifespan. Results Long-term freezing of feces before microbiota extraction modified composition but did not negatively impact subsequent worm development, fat accumulation, reproduction, and maximal lifespan, whereas using samples extracted and left at room temperature after a long period of time resulted in robust avoidance and was detrimental for normal growth. Conclusions Using frozen feces to test for impacts of microbiota in C. elegans appears an appropriate method since it did not affect normal biology and healthspan, which supports protocols with already existing feces stored in biobanks for high-throughput phenotype screenings.
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.
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 it