Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24796302›Full record

ArticleMarine drugs2014

In vitro assessment of marine Bacillus for use as livestock probiotics.

Maria Luz Prieto, Laurie O'Sullivan, Shiau Pin Tan, Peter McLoughlin, Helen Hughes, Montserrat Gutierrez, Jonathan A Lane, Rita M Hickey, Peadar G Lawlor, Gillian E Gardiner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Marine drugs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. mSystems · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. ProbioticsFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  13. Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Antibiotic-ResistantFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    Review
  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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Luz PrietoEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. 20038355@mail.wit.ie.
Laurie O'SullivanEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. laurie.os@gmail.com.
Shiau Pin TanEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. 20039108@mail.wit.ie.
Peter McLoughlinEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. pmcloughlin@wit.ie.
Helen HughesEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. hhughes@wit.ie.
Montserrat GutierrezVeterinary Public Health Regulatory Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Backweston Complex, Celbridge, Co. Kildare, Ireland. MM.Gutierrez@agriculture.gov.ie.
Jonathan A LaneTeagasc Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland. jonathan.lane@teagasc.ie.
Rita M HickeyTeagasc Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland. Rita.Hickey@teagasc.ie.
Peadar G LawlorPig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland. peadar.lawlor@teagasc.ie.
Gillian E GardinerEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. ggardiner@wit.ie.
Waterford Institute of Technology · IETeagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Six antimicrobial-producing seaweed-derived Bacillus strains were evaluated in vitro as animal probiotics, in comparison to two Bacillus from an EU-authorized animal probiotic product. Antimicrobial activity was demonstrated on solid media against porcine Salmonella and E. coli. The marine isolates were most active against the latter, had better activity than the commercial probiotics and Bacillus pumilus WIT 588 also reduced E. coli counts in broth. All of the marine Bacillus tolerated physiological concentrations of bile, with some as tolerant as one of the probiotics. Spore counts for all isolates remained almost constant during incubation in simulated gastric and ileum juices. All of the marine Bacillus grew anaerobically and the spores of all except one isolate germinated under anaerobic conditions. All were sensitive to a panel of antibiotics and none harbored Bacillus enterotoxin genes but all, except B. pumilus WIT 588, showed some degree of β-hemolysis. However, trypan blue dye exclusion and xCELLigence assays demonstrated a lack of toxicity in comparison to two pathogens; in fact, the commercial probiotics appeared more cytotoxic than the majority of the marine Bacillus. Overall, some of the marine-derived Bacillus, in particular B. pumilus WIT 588, demonstrate potential for use as livestock probiotics.

Indexed as

LivestockProbioticsWater MicrobiologyAnaerobiosisAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacillusBacteriaBileCell AdhesionHemolysisHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSeawaterSeaweedAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID24796302
PMCPMC4052298
OpenAlexW2137174290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.