DOI:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00745.x
Bibliographic record
Abstract
resistance; sodium diethyldithiocarbamate; tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Many Candida spp. produce surface-adherent biofilm populations that are resistant to antifungal compounds and other environmental stresses. Recently, certain chelating agents have been recognized as having strong antimicrobial activity against biofilms of Candida species. This study investigated and character-ized the concentration- and time-dependent killing of Candida biofilms by the chelators tetrasodium EDTA and sodium diethyldithiocarbamate. Here, Candida albicans and Candida tropicalis biofilms were cultivated in the Calgary Biofilm Device and then exposed to gradient arrays of these agents. Population survival was evaluated by viable cell counting and by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) in conjunction with fluorescent viability staining. At concentrations of Z2mM, both EDTA and diethyldithiocarbamate killed c. 90–99.5 % of the biofilm cell populations. Notably, a small fraction (c. 0.5–10%) of biofilm cells were able to withstand the highest concentrations of these antifungals that were tested (16 and 32mM for EDTA and diethyldithiocarbamate, respectively). Interestingly, CLSM revealed that these surviving cells were irregularly distributed throughout the biofilm community. These data suggest that the use of chelating agents against biofilms of Candida spp. may be limited by the refractory nature of a variant cell subpopulation in the surface-adherent community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.915 | 0.913 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".