Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27527701›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology in health and disease2016

Characterisation of probiotic properties in human vaginal lactobacilli strains.

Pirje Hütt, Eleri Lapp, Jelena Štšepetova, Imbi Smidt, Heleri Taelma, Natalja Borovkova, Helen Oopkaup, Ave Ahelik, Tiiu Rööp, Dagmar Hoidmets and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology in health and disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Regulatory Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Advancements in vaginal microbiota,Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Evidence ofMicrobial genomics · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Substances Secreted byInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Pirje HüttDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Eleri LappDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Jelena ŠtšepetovaDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Imbi SmidtDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Heleri TaelmaDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Natalja BorovkovaDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Helen OopkaupDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Ave AhelikDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Tiiu RööpDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Dagmar HoidmetsDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Külli SamuelCompetence Centre on Health Technologies, Tartu, Estonia.
Andres SalumetsCompetence Centre on Health Technologies, Tartu, Estonia.
Reet MändarDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaginal lactobacilli offer protection against recurrent urinary infections, bacterial vaginosis, and vaginal candidiasis.

objectiveTo characterise the isolated vaginal lactobacilli strains for their probiotic properties and to compare their probiotic potential.

methodsThe Lactobacillus strains were isolated from vaginal samples by conventional culturing and identified by sequencing of the 16S rDNA fragment. Several functional properties were detected (production of hydrogen peroxide and lactic acid; antagonistic activity against Escherichia coli, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, and Gardnerella vaginalis; auto-aggregation and adhesiveness) as well as safety (haemolytic activity, antibiotic susceptibility, presence of transferrable resistance genes).

resultsA total of 135 vaginal lactobacilli strains of three species, Lactobacillus crispatus (56%), Lactobacillus jensenii (26%), and Lactobacillus gasseri (18%) were characterised using several functional and safety tests. Most of L. crispatus (89%) and L. jensenii (86%) strains produced H2O2. The best lactic acid producers were L. gasseri (18.2±2.2 mg/ml) compared to L. crispatus (15.6±2.8 mg/ml) and L. jensenii (11.6±2.6 mg/ml) (p<0.0001; p<0.0001, respectively). L. crispatus strains showed significantly higher anti-E. coli activity compared to L. jensenii. L. gasseri strains expressed significantly lower anticandidal activity compared to L. crispatus and L. jensenii (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the species in antagonistic activity against G. vaginalis. Nearly a third of the strains were able to auto-aggregate while all the tested strains showed a good ability to adhere to HeLa cells. None of the tested lactobacilli caused haemolysis. Although phenotypical resistance was not found to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, erythromycin, gentamycin, tetracycline, and vancomycin, the erm(B), tet(M), and tet(K) were detected in some strains. All strains were resistant to metronidazole, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and kanamycin.

conclusionsOur study revealed that the production of different antimicrobial metabolites is highly strain-specific and that the metabolites are not correlated with each other. L. crispatus displays better antagonistic activity against E. coli and Candida spp. than L. gasseri and L. jensenii; therefore; a potential probiotic candidate could be found among L. crispatus strains.

Indexed as

Lactobacillus crispatusLactobacillus gasseriLactobacillus jenseniiprobioticvaginal lactobacilli

Identifiers

PMID27527701
PMCPMC4985617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.