Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24549747›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2014

Identification of vaginal lactobacilli with potential probiotic properties isolated from women in North Lebanon.

Imad Al Kassaa, Monzer Hamze, Didier Hober, Nour-Eddine Chihib, Djamel Drider

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Activity ofVirulence · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Preliminary Study on Effect ofFood science of animal resources · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Imad Al KassaaLaboratoire des Procédés Biologiques, Génie Enzymatique et Microbien (ProBioGEM), Cité Scientifique, avenue Paul Langevin. Bâtiment-Polytech Lille, 59655, Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France.
Monzer Hamze
Didier Hober
Nour-Eddine Chihib
Djamel Drider

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this work was to study the diversity of vaginal lactobacilli in Lebanese women and to evaluate the antagonism, hydrophobicity, and safety characteristics of these strains. This study was performed on samples from 135 women who visited a gynecology clinic in the north of Lebanon, between September 2012 and January 2013. From these samples, 53 different isolates of vaginal lactobacilli were collected from vaginal swabs and identified using biochemical and molecular methods. The use of genotypic Rep-PCR fingerprinting allowed for the organization of these isolates into 23 different groups. Seven of the isolated lactobacilli were antagonistic against the following vaginal pathogens: Gardnerella vaginalis CIP7074T, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC33862, Escherichia coli CIP103982, and Candida albicans ATCC10231. The antagonistic lactobacilli strains were then identified using 16S rDNA sequence. The data of this study show that the antagonistic lactobacilli were non-hemolytic, sensitive to most antibiotic tests, free of plasmid DNA, and exhibited interesting hydrophobicity and autoaggregation properties positioning them as potential candidates for probiotic design.

Indexed as

AntibiosisAdultBacteriaCandida albicansDNA FingerprintingFemaleHumansLactobacillusLebanonMiddle AgedPolymerase Chain ReactionProbioticsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SVaginaYoung AdultRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.