Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26800875›Full record

ArticleJournal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950)2016

Differential Effects of Escherichia coli Nissle and Lactobacillus rhamnosus Strain GG on Human Rotavirus Binding, Infection, and B Cell Immunity.

Sukumar Kandasamy, Anastasia N Vlasova, David Fischer, Anand Kumar, Kuldeep S Chattha, Abdul Rauf, Lulu Shao, Stephanie N Langel, Gireesh Rajashekara, Linda J Saif

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Current and emerging approaches to manage chronic inflammatory gut disorders.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sukumar KandasamyFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691 saif.2@osu.edu kandasamy.7@osu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1956-4503
Anastasia N VlasovaFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.
David FischerFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0917-2349
Anand KumarFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.
Kuldeep S ChatthaFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.
Abdul RaufFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.
Lulu ShaoFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1441-4744
Stephanie N LangelFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.
Gireesh RajashekaraFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.
Linda J SaifFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Veterinary Preventive Medicine Department, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691 saif.2@osu.edu kandasamy.7@osu.edu.

Funding

Gut microflora: Impact on neonatal immunity, viral gastroenteritis and vaccinesR01AI099451 · NIAID · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI RAJASHEKARA, GIREESH, SAIF, LINDA J. · 2012 to 2016
$2.2M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI099451PHS HHS R01 A1099451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rotavirus (RV) causes significant morbidity and mortality in children worldwide. The intestinal microbiota plays an important role in modulating host-pathogen interactions, but little is known about the impact of commonly used probiotics on human RV (HRV) infection. In this study, we compared the immunomodulatory effects of Gram-positive (Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG [LGG]) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli Nissle [EcN]) probiotic bacteria on virulent human rotavirus (VirHRV) infection and immunity using neonatal gnotobiotic piglets. Gnotobiotic piglets were colonized with EcN, LGG, or EcN+LGG or uncolonized and challenged with VirHRV. Mean peak virus shedding titers and mean cumulative fecal scores were significantly lower in EcN-colonized compared with LGG-colonized or uncolonized piglets. Reduced viral shedding titers were correlated with significantly reduced small intestinal HRV IgA Ab responses in EcN-colonized compared with uncolonized piglets post-VirHRV challenge. However the total IgA levels post-VirHRV challenge in the intestine and pre-VirHRV challenge in serum were significantly higher in EcN-colonized than in LGG-colonized piglets. In vitro treatment of mononuclear cells with these probiotics demonstrated that EcN, but not LGG, induced IL-6, IL-10, and IgA, with the latter partially dependent on IL-10. However, addition of exogenous recombinant porcine IL-10 + IL-6 to mononuclear cells cocultured with LGG significantly enhanced IgA responses. The greater effectiveness of EcN in moderating HRV infection may also be explained by the binding of EcN but not LGG to Wa HRV particles or HRV 2/4/6 virus-like particles but not 2/6 virus-like particles. Results suggest that EcN and LGG differentially modulate RV infection and B cell responses.

Indexed as

AnimalsB-LymphocytesDisease Models, AnimalEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayEnzyme-Linked Immunospot AssayEscherichia coliFlow CytometryGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHost-Pathogen InteractionsLacticaseibacillus rhamnosusProbioticsRotavirusRotavirus InfectionsSwine

Identifiers

PMID26800875
PMCPMC4744595
OpenAlexW2410001791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.