ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2015
Evaluation of profertility effect of probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum 2621 in a murine model.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging the role of the microbiome in endometriosis: novel non-invasive and therapeutic approaches.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- The evolving facets of vaginal microbiota transplantation: reinvigorating the unexplored frontier amid complex challenges.Archives of microbiology · 2024Review
- An Overview of the Microbiota of the Human Urinary Tract in Health and Disease: Current Issues and Perspectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Role of the vaginal microbiome in miscarriage: exploring the relationship.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Review
- Influence of group BWorld journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Psychobiotics: the Influence of Gut Microbiota on the Gut-Brain Axis in Neurological Disorders.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2022Article
- The female reproductive tract microbiotas, inflammation, and gynecological conditions.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2022Review
- Nutrition in Gynecological Diseases: Current Perspectives.Nutrients · 2021Review
- Vaginal Probiotics for Reproductive Health and Related Dysbiosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Insight Into the Beneficial Role ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- The Cervicovaginal Mucus Barrier.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Difference in vaginal microecology, local immunity and HPV infection among childbearing-age women with different degrees of cervical lesions in Inner Mongolia.BMC women's health · 2019Article
- Article
- Group BPeerJ · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesUrogenital infections of bacterial origin have a high incidence among the female population at reproductive age, affecting the fertility. Strains of Escherichia coli can colonize the vagina and replace natural microflora. Lactobacillus the predominant vaginal microorganism in healthy women, maintains the acidic vaginal pH which inhibits pathogenic microorganisms. Studies on Lactobacillus have shown that these can inhibit E. coli growth and vaginal colonization. An alternative therapeutic approach to antimicrobial therapy is to re-establish Lactobacillus in this microbiome through probiotic administration to resurge fertility. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the capability of L. plantarum 2621 strain with probiotic properties, to prevent the vaginal colonization of E. coli causing agglutination of sperms and to evaluate its profertility effect in a murine model.
methodsScreened mice were divided into five groups i.e. control group, E. coli group, Lactobacillus group, prophylactic and therapeutic groups. The control group was infused with 20 µl PBS, E.coli group was administered with 10 [6] cfu/20 µl E. coli, and probiotic group was administered with Lactobacillus (10 [8] cfu/20 µl) for 10 consecutive days. In prophylactic group, the vagina was colonized with 10 consecutive doses of Lactobacillus (10 [8] cfu/20 µl). After 24 h, it was followed by 10 day intravaginal infection with E. coli (10 [6] cfu/20 µl) whereas for the therapeutic group vagina was colonized with (10 [6] cfu/20 µl) E. coli for 10 consecutive days, followed by 10 day intravaginal administration with Lactobacillus after 24 h.
resultsUpon mating and completion of gestation period, control, probiotic and the therapeutic groups had litters in contrast to the prophylactic group and the group administered with E. coli. INTERPRETATION &
conclusionsResults indicated that Lactobacillus intermitted colonization of pathogenic strains that resulted in reinforcement of natural microflora and resurge fertility.
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.