ArticleFolia microbiologica2006
Different utilization of glucose and raffinose in Bifidobacterium breve and Bifidobacterium animalis.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of probiotic growth stimulation using prebiotic ingredients to optimize compounds forFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Identification of an Invertase With High Specific Activity for Raffinose Hydrolysis and Its Application in Soymilk Treatment.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Bifidobacterium breve as a delivery vector of IL-24 gene therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in vivo.Gene therapy · 2017Article
- Enterococci from piglets--probiotic properties and responsiveness to natural antibacterial substances.Folia microbiologica · 2009Article
- Establishment and follow-up of bifidobacterial species in the gut of healthy bottle-fed infants of 1-4 months age.Folia microbiologica · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growth of 2 strains of Bifidobacterium breve and 4 strains of Bifidobacterium animalis was evaluated with glucose, raffinose or a mixture of glucose and raffinose as substrates. All strains of B. animalis and one strain of B. breve grew more slowly on glucose than on raffinose or the mixture of glucose and raffinose; one strain of B. breve grew more rapidly on the mixture of glucose and raffinose than on raffinose while 2 strains of B. animalis grew faster on raffinose than on the mixture of raffinose and glucose. Both strains of B. breve utilized glucose and raffinose simultaneously. In contrast, all strains of B. animalis strains displayed atypical growth with rapid utilization of raffinose followed by slow utilization of glucose. The cell morphology of all strains of B. animalis was affected by the sugar used for cultivation: tiny and rather spherical cells were observed on glucose while on media with raffinose the cells were large and had the species-specific shape. Description of preferential utilization of various saccharides by bifidobacteria can contribute to the development of new synbiotic preparations and new cultivation media for bifidobacteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.