ArticleBMC microbiology2016
Comparison of various molecular methods for rapid differentiation of intestinal bifidobacteria at the species, subspecies and strain level.
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.
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, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- A NovelAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Genetic specialization of key bifidobacterial phylotypes in multiple mother-infant dyad cohorts from geographically isolated populations.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Identification of ADS024, a newly characterized strain of Bacillus velezensis with direct Clostridiodes difficile killing and toxin degradation bio-activities.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Infant-gut associated Bifidobacterium dentium strains utilize the galactose moiety and release lacto-N-triose from the human milk oligosaccharides lacto-N-tetraose and lacto-N-neotetraose.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of the microbial community and nutritional quality of sufu.Food science & nutrition · 2021Article
- Efficacy of BOX-PCR fingerprinting for taxonomic discrimination of bifidobacterial species isolated from diverse sources.3 Biotech · 2021Article
- Molecular typing tools for identifying and characterizing lactic acid bacteria: a review.Food science and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Genotyping and plant-derived glycan utilization analysis of Bifidobacterium strains from mother-infant pairs.BMC microbiology · 2020Article
- Human milk and mucosa-associated disaccharides impact on cultured infant fecal microbiota.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Molecular Routes to Specific Identification of the Lactobacillus Casei Group at the Species, Subspecies and Strain Level.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Cultivation and Genomics Prove Long-Term Colonization of Donor's Bifidobacteria in RecurrentFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- In Vitro Comparative Analysis of Probiotic and Functional Attributes of Indigenous Isolates of Bifidobacteria.Current microbiology · 2019Article
- Differentiation ofPeerJ · 2017Article
- Assessment of MultiLocus Sequence Analysis As a Valuable Tool for the Classification of the GenusFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.