MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Biofilm Inhibitory Activity of Probiotics and Postbiotics Using In Vitro Biofilm Model of Canine Periodontal Disease

2025· article· en· W4415673172 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Achraf Adib Lesaux, Eva Cunha, Nathalie Ballet, Manuela Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroorganisms · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPhileo by Lesaffre
KeywordsBiofilmProbioticIn vitroIn vivoPeriodontal diseaseStrain (injury)Crystal violet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Periodontal disease (PD) is one of the most widespread oral inflammatory diseases in dogs, with the potential to cause systemic consequences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the inhibitory potential of yeast-derived postbiotics and probiotic bacterial strains by using a previously developed in vitro biofilm model mimicking canine PD-associated biofilm including five bacterial species: Neisseria zoodegmatis, Corynebacterium canis, Porphyromonas cangingivalis, Peptostreptococcus canis, and Enterococcus faecalis. After we confirmed the presence of these five bacterial species by employing Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization, the biofilm inhibitory and eradication activity of 11 yeast-derived postbiotics and probiotic bacterial strains, as well as selected dual biotic combinations, against the polymicrobial biofilm were determined using a modified version of the Calgary Biofilm Pin Lid Device and the crystal violet method; additionally, hemolytic activity was evaluated using canine red blood cells. The results show that the inhibitory activity against the polymicrobial PD biofilm ranged from 0% to 22.55%, and eradication ability varied between 0% and 17.28%; however, when combined, the biotics achieved a maximum inhibition rate of 71%. Probiotic strain BC-05 exhibited the lowest in vitro hemolytic activity. Overall, based on the results, four yeast-derived postbiotics and one probiotic bacterial strain were selected as promising candidates for further evaluation, aiming at in vivo application.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroorganismsSame topicOral microbiology and periodontitis researchFrench-language works237,207