ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2012
Upregulation of Intestinal Mucin Expression by the Probiotic Bacterium E. coli Nissle 1917.
Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2012. 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, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of the intestinal microbiota in sepsis-associated encephalopathy.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- The interplay between probiotics and mast cells in gut inflammation: a mini-review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Escherichia coli Nissle Improves Short-Chain Fatty Acid Absorption and Barrier Function in a Mouse Model for Chronic Inflammatory Diarrhea.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2025Article
- Gut Goo: Physiology, Diet, and Therapy of Intestinal Mucus and Biofilms in Gastrointestinal Health and Disease.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2025Review
- Bacterial microcompartment utilization in the human commensalJournal of bacteriology · 2024Article
- Comprehensive probiogenomics analysis of the commensal Escherichia coli CEC15 as a potential probiotic strain.BMC microbiology · 2023Article
- Armored probiotics for oral delivery.Smart medicine · 2023Review
- Bi-directional elucidation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (RTA 8) intervention on the pathophysiology of gut-brain axis during Salmonella brain infection.Gut pathogens · 2022Article
- Commercial microbiota test revealed differences in the composition of intestinal microorganisms between children with autism spectrum disorders and neurotypical peers.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Impact of Food-Derived Bioactive Compounds on Intestinal Immunity.Biomolecules · 2021Review
- Mucin pre-cultivated Lactobacillus reuteri E shows enhanced adhesion and increases mucin expression in HT-29 cells.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2020Article
- KeepingDisease models & mechanisms · 2019Article
- Food Supplements to Mitigate Detrimental Effects of Pelvic Radiotherapy.Microorganisms · 2019Review
- Probiotics and the Gut Immune System: Indirect Regulation.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) has been reported to have various health benefits; however, very little is known about their underlying mechanisms. In this regard, the present study aimed to elucidate the effect of the bacterium on mucin production by intestinal epithelial cells. Incubation of HT-29 cells with EcN lead to a contact time-dependent rise in mRNA levels of the MUC2, MUC3, MUC5AC, and MUC5A. The expression was markedly higher with MUC5AC gene. In most cases, MUC genes expression was more pronounced in polarized cells compared to non-polarized ones. In contrast to MUC3, the basal stimulation of polarized cells brought about markedly higher levels of other tested mucins. Similar but milder results were observed when living EcN was replaced by inactivated bacteria. With exception of MUC3, the conditioned media showed no significant effect on the mRNA level of the tested mucins. The above-mentioned mRNA results were confirmed on protein level using enzyme-linked lectin assay (ELLA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA). In contrast to other treatments, basal stimulation of polarized cells showed a growth phase-dependent MUC induction with more prominent effect by stationary-phase bacteria. In contrast to MUC 2 and MUC3, the induction of MUC5AC and MUC5B showed a bacterial count-dependent pattern. In conclusion, EcN was found to stimulate MUC gene expression in HT-29 intestinal cells. This stimulation was more distinct with polarized cells. Such observation may partially interpret some health benefits of the probiotic bacterium including antagonizing pathogen adhesion and protection of the intestinal mucosa.
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.