ArticleGenes & nutrition2011
Group-specific comparison of four lactobacilli isolated from human sources using differential blast analysis.
Article in Genes & nutrition, 2011. 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.
- Characterization of Probiotic Properties and Whole-Genome Analysis ofMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for Bacterial Vaginosis: A Network Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Complete Genome Sequence ofGenome announcements · 2017Article
- GAMOLA2, a Comprehensive Software Package for the Annotation and Curation of Draft and Complete Microbial Genomes.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- Genomic Diversity of Phages Infecting Probiotic Strains of Lactobacillus paracasei.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have been used in fermentation processes for centuries. More recent applications including the use of LAB as probiotics have significantly increased industrial interest. Here we present a comparative genomic analysis of four completely sequenced Lactobacillus strains, isolated from the human gastrointestinal tract, versus 25 lactic acid bacterial genomes present in the public database at the time of analysis. Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM, Lactobacillus johnsonii NCC533, Lactobacillus gasseri ATCC33323, and Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1are all considered probiotic and widely used in industrial applications. Using Differential Blast Analysis (DBA), each genome was compared to the respective remaining three other Lactobacillus and 25 other LAB genomes. DBA highlighted strain-specific genes that were not represented in any other LAB used in this analysis and also identified group-specific genes shared within lactobacilli. Initial comparative analyses highlighted a significant number of genes involved in cell adhesion, stress responses, DNA repair and modification, and metabolic capabilities. Furthermore, the range of the recently identified potential autonomous units (PAUs) was broadened significantly, indicating the possibility of distinct families within this genetic element. Based on in silico results obtained for the model organism L. acidophilus NCFM, DBA proved to be a valuable tool to identify new key genetic regions for functional genomics and also suggested re-classification of previously annotated genes.
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.