Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30257614›Full record

ArticleVirulence2018

In vitro and in vivo defensive effect of probiotic LAB against Pseudomonas aeruginosa using Caenorhabditis elegans model.

Ramachandran Chelliah, Jung-Gu Choi, Su-Bin Hwang, Byung-Jae Park, Eric Banan-Mwine Daliri, Se-Hun Kim, Shuai Wei, Sudha Rani Ramakrishnan, Deog-Hwan Oh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Virulence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Gut microbiome speciesCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Potential ProbioticAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  11. Anti-Obesity Efficacy ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  12. Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. In Vitro Probitotic Evaluation ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Frontiers in nutrition · 2020
    Review
  18. International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
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

9 authors.

Ramachandran Chelliaha Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, School of Bioconvergence Science and Technology , Kangwon National University , Chuncheon , Republic of Korea.
Jung-Gu Choia Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, School of Bioconvergence Science and Technology , Kangwon National University , Chuncheon , Republic of Korea.
Su-Bin Hwanga Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, School of Bioconvergence Science and Technology , Kangwon National University , Chuncheon , Republic of Korea.
Byung-Jae Parka Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, School of Bioconvergence Science and Technology , Kangwon National University , Chuncheon , Republic of Korea.
Eric Banan-Mwine Daliria Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, School of Bioconvergence Science and Technology , Kangwon National University , Chuncheon , Republic of Korea.
Se-Hun Kima Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, School of Bioconvergence Science and Technology , Kangwon National University , Chuncheon , Republic of Korea.
Shuai Weib Department of Medical Biomaterials Engineering and Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology , Kangwon National University , Chuncheon , Republic of Korea.
Sudha Rani Ramakrishnanc School of Food Science and Biotechnology , Kyungpook National University , Daegu 41566 , South Korea.
Deog-Hwan Oha Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, School of Bioconvergence Science and Technology , Kangwon National University , Chuncheon , Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate in vitro and in vivo the probiotic characteristics of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolated from Korean traditional fermented foods. Caenorhabditis elegans  (C. elegans) was used for analytical assays of fertility, chemotaxis, life-span, worm-killing and bacterial colonization in the intestinal lumen of the worm. All 35 strains of LAB reduced fertility and slowed development in the worms. The worm-killing assay showed that LAB significantly increased the lifespan (P < 0.05) and reduced the susceptibility to virulent PA14; however, the heat-killed LAB did not. The bacterial colonization assay revealed that LAB proliferated and protected the gut of the worm against infection by Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA14. In addition, specific LAB Pediococcus acidilactici(P. acidilactici DM-9), Pediococcus brevis (L. brevis SDL1411), and Pediococcus pentosaceus (P. pentosaceus SDL1409) strains showed acid resistance (66-91%), resistance to pepsin (64-67%) and viability in simulated intestinal fluid (67-73%) based on in vitro probiotic analyses. Taken together, these results suggest that C. elegans may be a tractable model for screening efficient probiotics.

Indexed as

ProbioticsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCaenorhabditis elegansChemotaxisFermented FoodsGastrointestinal TractIntestinesLactobacillalesLongevityMicrobial InteractionsPediococcusPepsin APseudomonas aeruginosaAnti-Bacterial AgentsPepsin ACaenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans)chemotaxisGut colonizationKorean soybean paste (KSP)ProbioticsPseudomonas aeruginosa(PA 14)

Identifiers

PMID30257614
PMCPMC6177248

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.