ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2010
Physiological and Structural Differences Between Enterococcus faecalis JH2-2 and Mutant Strains Resistant to (P)-Divercin RV41.
Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulation ofEcoSal Plus · 2017Review
- Mechanism of Nisin, Pediocin 34, and Enterocin FH99 Resistance in Listeria monocytogenes.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to show the differences that could exist at the physiological and structural levels between Enterococcus faecalis JH2-2 (wild type) and three mutant strains resistant to divercin RV41. These mutant strains were recently isolated and characterized for their intermediate resistance to recombinant DvnRV41; a subclass IIa bacteriocin produced by Escherichia coli. These mutant strains were named 35A1 (altered in gene coding phosphoesterase activity), 35H1 (altered in gene coding σ(54) factor) and 36H4 (altered in gene coding glycerophosphodiesterase). The growth and resistance of each strain were tested against lysozyme. The inhibitory substance did not show any cross-resistance but exhibited an additive effect ascribed to the combined action of lysozyme and (P)-DvnRV41. The use of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) allowed to unravelling differences at the structural levels between the aforementioned strains. Thus, mutants 35H1 and 36H4 showed clear differences from mutant 35A1 and wild-type strain. These differences were located, mainly in the fatty acid region and in the polysaccharide composition. This study contributes to understanding more the resistance/sensitivity of Ent. faecalis to (P)-DvnRV41, a subclass IIa bacteriocin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26781317What 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.