Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30323790›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2018

Safety and Growth Optimization of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated From Feedlot Cattle for Probiotic Formula Design.

Cecilia Aristimuño Ficoseco, Flavia I Mansilla, Natalia C Maldonado, Hortencia Miranda, María E Fátima Nader-Macias, Graciela M Vignolo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. A sapropel-derivedFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Identification and characterization of potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria isolated from pig feces at various production stages.Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  16. Safety Evaluation ofMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cecilia Aristimuño FicosecoCentro de Referencia para Lactobacilos, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina.
Flavia I MansillaCentro de Referencia para Lactobacilos, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina.
Natalia C MaldonadoCentro de Referencia para Lactobacilos, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina.
Hortencia MirandaCentro de Referencia para Lactobacilos, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina.
María E Fátima Nader-MaciasCentro de Referencia para Lactobacilos, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina.
Graciela M VignoloCentro de Referencia para Lactobacilos, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina.
Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to eliminate the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock production, the research for alternatives has increased lately. This study examined the safety of 40 lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolated from bovine feedlot environment and previously selected as potential probiotics. A high sensitivity prevalence to ampicillin (AMP, 100%), gentamicin (GEN, 96.3%), kanamycin (KAN, 96.3%), clindamycin (CLI, 85.2%), chloramphenicol (CHL, 92.6%) and streptomycin (STR, 88.9%) while moderate and high resistance against erythromycin (ERY, 48%) and tetracycline (TET, 79%) respectively, were determined. Feedlot enterococci and pediococci displayed high resistance to CLI, ERY, GEN and TET (73, 100, 54.5, and 73%, respectively). Among fifteen resistance genes investigated, seven were identified in lactobacilli; their presence not always was correlated with phenotypic resistance. STR resistance genes,

Indexed as

antibiotic resistancefeedlot cattlegrowth conditionslactic acid bacteriavirulence determinants

Identifiers

PMID30323790
PMCPMC6172481
OpenAlexW2893259060

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.