ArticleFolia microbiologica2019
Evaluation of enterococci for potential probiotic utilization in dogs.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Different Synbiotic Strategies to Improve Gut Health in Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Gut Probiotics and Health of Dogs and Cats: Benefits, Applications, and Underlying Mechanisms.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Isolation, characterization, and immunomodulatory activity evaluation of probiotic strains from colostrum and canine milk.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Characterization and Comparison ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Some strains of the genus Enterococcus are effective probiotic bacteria if they meet safety and probiotic criteria. In our study, 17 canine enterococci previously selected from a group of 160 isolates based on safety criteria were screened for some functional properties relevant to their use as probiotics. The results of antimicrobial resistance testing showed sensitivity of eleven strains to EFSA recommended antimicrobials. In contrast, the most frequent resistance was observed for cefotaxim (15/17) and oxacillin (13/17). PCR detection of resistance genes (vanA, vanB, vanC, tetM, tetL, ermB, and mefA) revealed the presence of mefA gene in five Enterococcus faecium strains and vanA gene in one strain. The production of enzymes commonly associated with intestinal diseases was in general rare (β-glucosidase 2/17, α-chymotrypsin 1/17, N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase 0/17, and β-glucuronidase 0/17). The measurement of strain survival rate (%) under the conditions simulating gastric (pH 2.5) and bile juices (0.3% bile) showed considerable differences between strains (< 0.01 to 4.7% after 90 min for gastric juices, 48.0 to 254.0% after 180 min for bile). The concentration of produced L-lactic acid ranged between 83.1 to 119.3 mmol/L after 48 h cultivation depending on the strain. All strains fermented 16 out of 49 different carbohydrates (range from 17 to 23/49). Antimicrobial activity was recorded for two strains against some species of Listeria sp. and Enterococcus sp. Finally, two E. faecium candidates (IK25 and D7) were selected for testing in dogs, and hereafter they could possibly extend the currently limited range of beneficial bacteria of canine origin used as a dietary supplement for dogs.
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.