ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2010
Comparison of Phenotypic and Genotypic Methods Used for the Species Identification of Lactobacillus NP51 and Development of a Strain-Specific PCR Assay.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 species level identity of Lactobacillus NP51, a commercial direct-fed microbial previously identified as Lactobacillus acidophilus NP51, was re-evaluated to determine whether new technologies resulted in changes in the original identification. The phenotypic methods for species identification included API 50 CHL kit and two automated systems, Vitek 2 and MIDI (FAME analysis; a total of three independent FAME analyses). Discrepancies among the identification results with all methods of phenotypic analysis were reported. MicroSeqID 500 16S rRNA system (SeqWright Inc., Houston, TX), a genotypic method, identified the organism as Lactobacillus animalis. Cloning, sequencing and subsequent sequence comparison of NP51 16S-23S intergenic spacer region (ISRs) to nucleotide sequence databases using the BLAST search tool indicated that NP51 can now be named L. animalis. When NP51 was originally identified as L. acidophilus, the designation of L. animalis did not exist taxonomically. The NP51 sequence comparisons using BLAST also revealed that NP51 and a strain previously identified as L. animalis LA51 HOFG1 by Flint and Angert are identical strains under different names. A strain-specific primer pair was also identified for HOFG1 by the same research group. A primer pair (using HOFG1 forward pair) also produced an amplicon unique to NP51. These methods demonstrate the significance of genetic-based detection methods both for scientific identification of organisms from biological samples and to prevent misidentification in food and health industry related microorganisms in which proprietary considerations are an important concern.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26781323What 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.