Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31107885›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Identification of Bacillus species: Implication on the quality of probiotic formulations.

Francesco Celandroni, Alessandra Vecchione, Alice Cara, Diletta Mazzantini, Antonella Lupetti, Emilia Ghelardi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Safety Evaluation ofFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Molecular characterization andFrontiers in chemistry · 2023
    Article
  14. PreliminaryIranian journal of veterinary research · 2023
    Article
  15. Biofilm · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. EnterotoxigenicFrontiers in immunology · 2022
    Review
  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.

Francesco CelandroniDepartment of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Alessandra VecchioneDepartment of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Alice CaraDepartment of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Diletta MazzantiniDepartment of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Antonella LupettiDepartment of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Emilia GhelardiDepartment of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6863-1384

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spores of several Bacillus species have long history of consumption and safe use as probiotics and a variety of formulations containing these organisms are available in the global market. Considering the difficulties in the identification of Bacillus species and the poor microbiological quality of many probiotic formulations, we used three up-to-date methodological approaches for analyzing the content of ten formulations marketed in Italy and labeled to contain Bacillus spores. We compared the performance of biochemical tests based on the BCL Vitek2 card and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry, using 16S rDNA sequencing as the reference technique. The BCL card performed well in identifying all Bacillus probiotic strains as well as the Bruker's MALDI Biotyper. Nevertheless, the MALDI score values were sometimes lower than those indicated by the manufacturer for correct species identification. Contaminant bacteria (Lysinibacillus fusiformis, Acinetobacter baumannii, Bacillus cereus, Brevibacillus choshinensis, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus badius) were detected in some formulations. Characterization of the B. cereus contaminant showed the potential pathogenicity of this strain. Microbial enumeration performed by the plate count method revealed that the number of viable cells contained in many of the analyzed products differed from the labeled amount. Overall, our data show that only two of the ten analyzed formulations qualitatively and quantitatively respect what is on the label. Since probiotic properties are most often strain specific, molecular typing of isolates of the two most common Bacillus species, B. clausii and B. coagulans, was also performed. In conclusion, the majority of the analyzed products do not comply with quality requirements, most likely leading to reduced/absent efficacy of the preparation and representing a potential infective risk for consumers.

Indexed as

Acinetobacter baumanniiBacillaceaeBacillusBacillus cereusBacillus licheniformisBrevibacillusDNA, BacterialDrug ContaminationItalyPhenotypePolymerase Chain ReactionProbioticsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecies SpecificitySpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationVirulenceDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID31107885
PMCPMC6527297

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.