ArticlePloS one2017
Inhibition effect of Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Streptococcus thermophilus and Enterococcus faecalis and their related products on human colonic smooth muscle in vitro.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of probiotics on the intestinal microbiota of hemodialysis patients: a randomized trial.European journal of nutrition · 2020Trial
- Enterococcus-driven metabolite-host gene networks in IBD-associated colorectal carcinogenesis: integrative multi-omics and experimental validation.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Potential Pathogens Associated with Colorectal Cancer.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Review
- Precision Psychobiotics for Gut-Brain Axis Health: Advancing the Discovery Pipelines to Deliver Mechanistic Pathways and Proven Health Efficacy.Microbial biotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
- Diversity in gut microbiota among colorectal cancer patients: findings from a case-control study conducted at a Tunisian University Hospital.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Gut microbiota characteristics of colorectal cancer patients in Hubei, China, and differences with cohorts from other Chinese regions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Mechanisms by which the intestinal microbiota affects gastrointestinal tumours and therapeutic effects.Molecular biomedicine · 2023Review
- Review
- The Gut Microbiome and Its Implication in the Mucosal Digestive Disorders.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Identification of a Quorum Sensing-Dependent Communication Pathway Mediating Bacteria-Gut-Brain Cross Talk.iScience · 2020Article
- Gut Microbiota and Colorectal Cancer Development: A Closer Look to the Adenoma-Carcinoma Sequence.Biomedicines · 2020Review
- The Role of Probiotics in Colorectal Cancer Management.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Review
- Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 8: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2018.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2018Article
- The controversial role ofTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Review
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
objectiveTo investigate the effects of four strains, generally used in clinic, including Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Streptococcus thermophilus and Enterococcus faecalis, and their related products on human colonic smooth muscle in vitro.
methodsHuman colonic circular muscle strips obtained from disease-free margins of resected segments from 25 patients with colorectal cancer were isometrically examined in a constant-temperature organ bath and exposed to different concentrations of living bacteria, sonicated cell fractions and cell-free supernatant (CFS). The area under the curve (AUC) representing the contractility of smooth muscle strips was calculated.
results(1) The four living probiotics inhibited the contractility of human colonic muscle strips only at high concentration (1010 CFUs/mL, all P<0.05). (2) The sonicated cell fractions from the four probiotics obviously inhibited human colonic smooth muscle strips in a dose-dependent manner (P<0.01). (3) The CFS from the four probiotics also inhibited colonic smooth muscle strips in a dose-dependent manner (all P<0.05). (4) The inhibition effect of CFS from Streptococcus thermophilus and Enterococcus faecalis decreased obviously when pretreated with NG-nitro-L-arginine (L-NNA, 10-5 mol/L) (P<0.05), but not the Bifidobacterium longum and Lactobacillus acidophilus (P>0.05).
conclusionFour common probiotics related products, including the sonicated cell fractions and the CFS, obviously inhibited human colonic smooth muscles strips contraction in a dose-dependent manner. Only high concentration living probiotics (1010 CFUs/mL) can inhibit the colonic smooth muscles strips contraction. The NO pathway may be partly involved in the inhibitory effect of CFS from Streptococcus thermophilus and Enterococcus faecalis.
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.