Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29451876›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Comparative genomic analysis of the multispecies probiotic-marketed product VSL#3.

François P Douillard, Diego Mora, Robyn T Eijlander, Michiel Wels, Willem M de Vos

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Cell-free supernatant ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Role ofCurrent developments in nutrition · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. ProbioticThe EPMA journal · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Comparative genome analysis ofMicrobial genomics · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

François P DouillardResearch Program Unit Immunobiology, Medicum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-7201-6907
Diego MoraDepartment of Food, Environmental, and Nutritional Sciences (DeFENS), University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Robyn T EijlanderNIZO, Ede, The Netherlands.
Michiel WelsNIZO, Ede, The Netherlands.
Willem M de VosResearch Program Unit Immunobiology, Medicum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Nederlands Instituut Voor Zuivel Oonderzoek · NLUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several probiotic-marketed formulations available for the consumers contain live lactic acid bacteria and/or bifidobacteria. The multispecies product commercialized as VSL#3 has been used for treating various gastro-intestinal disorders. However, like many other products, the bacterial strains present in VSL#3 have only been characterized to a limited extent and their efficacy as well as their predicted mode of action remain unclear, preventing further applications or comparative studies. In this work, the genomes of all eight bacterial strains present in VSL#3 were sequenced and characterized, to advance insights into the possible mode of action of this product and also to serve as a basis for future work and trials. Phylogenetic and genomic data analysis allowed us to identify the 7 species present in the VSL#3 product as specified by the manufacturer. The 8 strains present belong to the species Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus helveticus, Bifidobacterium breve and B. animalis subsp. lactis (two distinct strains). Comparative genomics revealed that the draft genomes of the S. thermophilus and L. helveticus strains were predicted to encode most of the defence systems such as restriction modification and CRISPR-Cas systems. Genes associated with a variety of potential probiotic functions were also identified. Thus, in the three Bifidobacterium spp., gene clusters were predicted to encode tight adherence pili, known to promote bacteria-host interaction and intestinal barrier integrity, and to impact host cell development. Various repertoires of putative signalling proteins were predicted to be encoded by the genomes of the Lactobacillus spp., i.e. surface layer proteins, LPXTG-containing proteins, or sortase-dependent pili that may interact with the intestinal mucosa and dendritic cells. Taken altogether, the individual genomic characterization of the strains present in the VSL#3 product confirmed the product specifications, determined its coding capacity as well as identified potential probiotic functions.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialBacterial AdhesionBifidobacteriumCRISPR-Cas SystemsGenomicsHumansIntestinal MucosaLacticaseibacillus paracaseiLactiplantibacillus plantarumLactobacillusLactobacillus acidophilusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhylogenyProbiotics

Identifiers

PMID29451876
PMCPMC5815585
OpenAlexW2792784505

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.