ArticleVeterinary world2018
Interspecies comparison of probiotics isolated from different animals.
Article in Veterinary world, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Isolation, molecular identification, and probiotic potential ofVeterinary world · 2026Article
- Exploring the Potential of Novel Animal-Origin Probiotics as Key Players in One Health: Opportunities and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A refined comparative mouse model of acute and chronic atopic dermatitis.Journal of animal science and technology · 2025Article
- Study of the Effect of Synbiotic Diet on Haematological and Oxidative Indexes Changes in Male Dogs.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Characterization of feline-originated probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus CACC612 and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis CACC789 and and evaluation of their host response.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Antibacterial potential of commercial and wild lactic acid bacteria strains isolated from ovine and caprine raw milk againstFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Isolation and Characterization of Human Intestinal BacteriaFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Recent Advances in Camel Milk Processing.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Impact of a Novel Nano-Protectant on the Viability of Probiotic BacteriumFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Characterization and Functional Test of Canine Probiotics.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Optimization of Production Parameters for Probiotic Lactobacillus Strains as Feed Additive.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the current study was to isolate and identify naturally occurring probiotic MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 44 fecal and milk samples were collected under aseptic conditions from cattle, buffalo, camel, sheep, goats, and fish. The samples were cultured, and the isolated strains were confirmed biochemically and molecularly using 16S rRNA multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis following DNA extraction from the bacterial isolates.
resultsA total of 31 isolates identified as lactobacilli were isolated from cattle milk, goat feces, sheep feces, fish feces, buffalo milk, camel milk, and goats' milk.
conclusionThe diversity of probiotic strains isolated from different animal species implies different types of benefits to the host. Although it would be both money - and time-consuming research, discovering the benefit of each of these strains may provide very important information for the health of both human and animal. Furthermore, transferring these beneficial effects either to individuals within the same species or between different species would be of great importance.
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.