ArticleNorth American journal of medical sciences2010
Quantitative real time PCR detection of Clostridium difficile growth inhibition by probiotic organisms.
Article in North American journal of medical sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gut to brain interaction in Autism Spectrum Disorders: a randomized controlled trial on the role of probiotics on clinical, biochemical and neurophysiological parameters.BMC psychiatry · 2016Trial
- Analysis of Health Benefits Conferred byNutrients · 2019Review
- Assessing inhibitory activity of probiotic culture supernatants against Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a comparative methodology between agar diffusion, broth culture and microcalorimetry.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2019Article
- Inhibition of Clostridium difficile in Mice Using a Mixture of Potential Probiotic Strains Enterococcus faecalis NM815, E. faecalis NM915, and E. faecium NM1015: Novel Candidates to Control C. difficile Infection (CDI).Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2018Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of Antimicrobial Activity of Lactic Acid Bacteria against Clostridium difficile.Toxicological research · 2013Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProbiotic microorganisms are potential treatments for Clostridium difficile diarrheal disease (CDD) but better methods are needed to determine the relative potency of probiotic microorganisms against pathogenic organisms in mixed cultures.
aimQuantify C. difficile in the presence of putative probiotic organisms using molecular methods to determine relative probiotic potency. MATERIALS AND
methodsC. difficile strains were cultivated anaerobically. Serial dilutions of Lactobacillus cultures or microbial mixtures from kefir were co-cultured with C. difficile for 48 hours. Bacterial DNA was extracted and qPCR was used to measure C. difficile toxin A gene, on the basis of cycle threshold (Ct) number.
resultsStrains of Lactobacillus (human and ATCC derived), and mixed cultures from commercial kefir were co-cultured with C. difficile. Lactobacillus and the microbial mixture from kefir were ranked in order of their potency in C. difficile growth inhibition.
conclusionsPCR allows facile quantification of C. difficle in the presence of other. The technique measures relative potency of over-the-counter probiotics and may predict human strains meriting probiotic status.
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.