ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2015
Use of Probiotics to Control Aflatoxin Production in Peanut Grains.
Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Aflatoxins and Heavy Metals inFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Inhibition of Aflatoxin B1 Synthesis inMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Fate of aflatoxins MFood science & nutrition · 2022Article
- Fungi and Aflatoxin Levels in Traditionally Processed Cassava (International journal of microbiology · 2020Article
- Rapid detection of aflatoxin M1 residues in market milk in Aswan Province, Egypt and effect of probiotics on its residues concentration.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2019Article
- Activity and Anti-Aflatoxigenic Effect of Indigenously Characterized Probiotic Lactobacilli againstAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2019Article
- AFM₁ in Milk: Physical, Biological, and Prophylactic Methods to Mitigate Contamination.Toxins · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Probiotic microorganisms (Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii, S. cerevisiae UFMG 905, and Lactobacillus delbrueckii UFV H2b20) were evaluated as biological control agents to reduce aflatoxin and spore production by Aspergillus parasiticus IMI 242695 in peanut. Suspensions containing the probiotics alone or in combinations were tested by sprinkling on the grains followed by incubation for seven days at 25°C. All probiotic microorganisms, in live and inactivated forms, significantly reduced A. parasiticus sporulation, but the best results were obtained with live cells. The presence of probiotics also altered the color of A. parasiticus colonies but not the spore morphology. Reduction in aflatoxin production of 72.8 and 65.8% was observed for S. boulardii and S. cerevisiae, respectively, when inoculated alone. When inoculated in pairs, all probiotic combinations reduced significantly aflatoxin production, and the best reduction was obtained with S. boulardii plus L. delbrueckii (96.1%) followed by S. boulardii plus S. cerevisiae and L. delbrueckii plus S. cerevisiae (71.1 and 66.7%, resp.). All probiotics remained viable in high numbers on the grains even after 300 days. The results of the present study suggest a different use of probiotics as an alternative treatment to prevent aflatoxin production in peanut grains.
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.