<?xml version='1.0'?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" >
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Scipedia: Collection of Articles on Immunology and Microbiology]]></title>
	<link>https://www.scipedia.com/sj/view/24131</link>
	<atom:link href="https://www.scipedia.com/sj/view/24131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
	
	<div id="documents_content"><script>var journal_guid = 24131;</script><item>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.scipedia.com/public/)_Munna_2026a</guid>
	<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 13:04:13 +0200</pubDate>
	<link>https://www.scipedia.com/public/)_Munna_2026a</link>
	<title><![CDATA[MICROBIAL FRONTIERS : From Laboratory Discoveries to the Future of Microbiology (Part 01)]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">Microbiology is often introduced through names: Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Saccharomyces. But a laboratory rarely feels like a list of names. It feels like a sequence of questions. Why did one culture survive the heat while another collapsed? Why did a disinfectant work in one setting but fail in another? Why did a food that looked clean carry organisms that a plate count could reveal? Why did an organism that appeared to be controlled begin growing again when conditions improved?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Those questions shaped more than a decade of laboratory-based work associated with microbiology research in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The published studies gathered in the original manuscript span clinical microbiology, food and environmental safety, bacterial and yeast stress physiology, and natural antimicrobial screening. Read separately, they are individual experiments. Read together, they become a story about microbial survival.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This expanded edition builds upon a foundation established through a series of research studies published as separate journal articles, while taking the discussion a step further by asking a broader and more forward-looking question: Where does this body of research lead next?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The answer is not a single technology. The future of microbiology is being assembled from several directions at once: genomic surveillance, metagenomic diagnostics, artificial intelligence, rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing, phage-based interventions, microbiome science, wastewater surveillance, climate-informed food safety, and One Health approaches that connect human, animal, food, and environmental systems.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">That future is exciting precisely because it is not simple. A genome can reveal resistance genes, but a gene is not automatically a phenotype. A metagenomic test can detect microbial DNA, but detection is not always proof of causation. An AI model can identify patterns, but a pattern is not automatically an explanation. A natural product can inhibit a bacterium in a laboratory assay, yet fail when food composition, dosage, stability, sensory effects, and real-world handling enter the picture.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The central message of this book is therefore deliberately practical: microbiology becomes more powerful when measurement is connected to context.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The quantitative results from the original research chapters are retained as reported in the source manuscript and its cited publications. New sections are clearly written as contemporary synthesis and future-oriented interpretation rather than as new experimental results. Where evidence is promising but not yet sufficient for routine practice, that distinction is stated openly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The book is written for students who want to understand why microbiology matters, professionals who want to connect laboratory evidence with food and public-health practice, and researchers who want to see how a decade of applied experiments can generate the questions of the next decade.</p>]]></description>
	<dc:creator>Md. Sakil Munna</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.scipedia.com/public/Scipedia_et_al_2023a</guid>
	<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2023 04:29:03 +0200</pubDate>
	<link>https://www.scipedia.com/public/Scipedia_et_al_2023a</link>
	<title><![CDATA[The Effect of Different Food Sources on Slime Mold Growth and Memory]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[<p>Physarum polycephalum is a species of slime mold that spends most of its life cycle as a plasmodium, a unicellular multinucleated amoeboid. This species of slime mold is well known for its spatial memory. Oats, quinoa, and barley have a lot of protein and nutrients; therefore, they were used to feed the slime mold. Other studies tested the memory or growth of slime mold. This experiment compared both slime mold growth and memory using oats, quinoa, and barley. It was hypothesized that barley would make the slime mold grow the quickest and largest due to its high protein concentration. Into 3 Petri dishes a culture of slime mold, and each food source was placed. The slime mold was then placed in a shoebox, with graph paper taped to the bottom, to make sure there was minimal lighting. After sections were cut out and placed into the remaining petri dishes with the same food sources it grew in and then placed into a Lego maze with the food sources to track the time of its memory. Barley and oats tied for overall growth after 48-hours, but barley-fed plasmodium grew much faster. It was hypothesized that the maze portion of the experiment, barley fed slime mold, would also complete the maze faster. The hypothesis was not supported. Oat grown slime mold completed the maze the fastest. The slime mold was placed into different mazes and allowed to grow for 48 hours. After 48 hours the hypothesis was concluded to be unsupported.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
	<dc:creator>Emma Davidoff</dc:creator>
</item>
</div>
</channel>
</rss>