Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27449060›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2016

Comparison of various molecular methods for rapid differentiation of intestinal bifidobacteria at the species, subspecies and strain level.

Piotr Jarocki, Marcin Podleśny, Elwira Komoń-Janczara, Jagoda Kucharska, Agnieszka Glibowska, Zdzisław Targoński

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A NovelAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Differentiation ofPeerJ · 2017
    Article
  14. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Piotr JarockiDepartment of Biotechnology, Human Nutrition and Food Commodities, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 8 Skromna St., 20-704, Lublin, Poland. piotr.jarocki@wp.pl.
Marcin PodleśnyDepartment of Biotechnology, Human Nutrition and Food Commodities, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 8 Skromna St., 20-704, Lublin, Poland.
Elwira Komoń-JanczaraDepartment of Biotechnology, Human Nutrition and Food Commodities, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 8 Skromna St., 20-704, Lublin, Poland.
Jagoda KucharskaDepartment of Biotechnology, Human Nutrition and Food Commodities, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 8 Skromna St., 20-704, Lublin, Poland.
Agnieszka GlibowskaDepartment of Biotechnology, Human Nutrition and Food Commodities, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 8 Skromna St., 20-704, Lublin, Poland.
Zdzisław TargońskiDepartment of Biotechnology, Human Nutrition and Food Commodities, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 8 Skromna St., 20-704, Lublin, Poland.
University of Life Sciences in Lublin · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMembers of the genus Bifidobacterium are anaerobic Gram-positive Actinobacteria, which are natural inhabitants of human and animal gastrointestinal tract. Certain bifidobacteria are frequently used as food additives and probiotic pharmaceuticals, because of their various health-promoting properties. Due to the enormous demand on probiotic bacteria, manufacture of high-quality products containing living microorganisms requires rapid and accurate identification of specific bacteria. Additionally, isolation of new industrial bacteria from various environments may lead to multiple isolations of the same strain, therefore, it is important to apply rapid, low-cost and effective procedures differentiating bifidobacteria at the intra-species level. The identification of new isolates using microbiological and biochemical methods is difficult, but the accurate characterization of isolated strains may be achieved using a polyphasic approach that includes classical phenotypic methods and molecular procedures. However, some of these procedures are time-consuming and cumbersome, particularly when a large group of new isolates is typed, while some other approaches may have too low discriminatory power to distinguish closely related isolates obtained from similar sources.

resultsThis work presents the evaluation of the discriminatory power of four molecular methods (ARDRA, RAPD-PCR, rep-PCR and SDS-PAGE fingerprinting) that are extensively used for fast differentiation of bifidobacteria up to the strain level. Our experiments included 17 reference strains and showed that in comparison to ARDRA, genotypic fingerprinting procedures (RAPD and rep-PCR) seemed to be less reproducible, however, they allowed to differentiate the tested microorganisms even at the intra-species level. In general, RAPD and rep-PCR have similar discriminatory power, though, in some instances more than one oligonucleotide needs to be used in random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. Moreover, the results also demonstrated a high discriminatory power of SDS-PAGE fingerprinting of whole-cell proteins. On the other hand, the protein profiles obtained were rather complex, and therefore, difficult to analyze.

conclusionsAmong the tested procedures, rep-PCR proved to be the most effective and reliable method allowing rapid differentiation of Bifidobacterium strains. Additionally, the use of the BOXA1R primer in the differentiation of 21 Bifidobacterium strains, newly isolated from infant feces, demonstrated slightly better discriminatory power in comparison to PCR reactions with the (GTG)5 oligonucleotide. Thus, BOX-PCR turned out to be the most appropriate and convenient molecular technique in differentiating Bifidobacterium strains at all taxonomic levels.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacterial Typing TechniquesBifidobacteriumDNA, BacterialDNA FingerprintingDNA PrimersElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelFecesGastrointestinal TractHumansIntestinesMolecular TypingPhylogenyPolymerase Chain ReactionPolymorphism, Restriction Fragment LengthProbioticsDNA, BacterialDNA PrimersRNA, Ribosomal, 16SARDRABifidobacteriumDifferentiationRAPDrep-PCRSDS-PAGE fingerprinting

Identifiers

PMID27449060
PMCPMC4957357
OpenAlexW2505710141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.