Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31560707›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Skin-associated lactic acid bacteria from North American bullfrogs as potential control agents of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis.

M V Niederle, J Bosch, C E Ale, M E Nader-Macías, C Aristimuño Ficoseco, L F Toledo, A Valenzuela-Sánchez, C Soto-Azat, S E Pasteris

Open access · goldAbstract 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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A sapropel-derivedFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. A Plasmid-Encoded Surface Polysaccharide Partly BlocksInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Forgotten fungi: the importance of the skin mycobiome.Current opinion in microbiology · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Microbial Diversity of the Chinese Tiger Frog (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Toxins · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

M V NiederleInstituto Superior de Investigaciones Biológicas (INSIBIO), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and Instituto de Biología "Dr. Francisco D. Barbieri", Facultad de Bioquímica, Química y Farmacia, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (UNT), San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina.
J BoschMuseo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
C E AleInstituto Superior de Investigaciones Biológicas (INSIBIO), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and Instituto de Biología "Dr. Francisco D. Barbieri", Facultad de Bioquímica, Química y Farmacia, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (UNT), San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina.
M E Nader-MacíasCentro de Referencia para Lactobacilos (CERELA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina.
C Aristimuño FicosecoCentro de Referencia para Lactobacilos (CERELA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina.
L F ToledoLaboratório de História Natural de Anfíbios Brasileiros (LaHNAB), Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
A Valenzuela-SánchezCentro de Investigación para la Sustentabilidad, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-0445-9156
C Soto-AzatCentro de Investigación para la Sustentabilidad, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0000-0001-9201-7886
S E PasterisInstituto Superior de Investigaciones Biológicas (INSIBIO), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and Instituto de Biología "Dr. Francisco D. Barbieri", Facultad de Bioquímica, Química y Farmacia, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (UNT), San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-1965-6854
National University of Tucumán · ARCentro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán · ARUniversidad Andrés Bello · CLUniversidad de Oviedo · ESUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) is the causative agent of chytridiomycosis and has been a key driver in the catastrophic decline of amphibians globally. While many strategies have been proposed to mitigate Bd outbreaks, few have been successful. In recent years, the use of probiotic formulations that protect an amphibian host by killing or inhibiting Bd have shown promise as an effective chytridiomycosis control strategy. The North American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) is a common carrier of Bd and harbours a diverse skin microbiota that includes lactic acid bacteria (LAB), a microbial group containing species classified as safe and conferring host benefits. We investigated beneficial/probiotic properties: anti-Bd activity, and adhesion and colonisation characteristics (hydrophobicity, biofilm formation and exopolysaccharide-EPS production) in two confirmed LAB (cLAB-Enterococcus gallinarum CRL 1826, Lactococcus garvieae CRL 1828) and 60 presumptive LAB (pLAB) [together named as LABs] isolated from bullfrog skin.We challenged LABs against eight genetically diverse Bd isolates and found that 32% of the LABs inhibited at least one Bd isolate with varying rates of inhibition. Thus, we established a score of sensitivity from highest (BdGPL AVS7) to lowest (BdGPL C2A) for the studied Bd isolates. We further reveal key factors underlying host adhesion and colonisation of LABs. Specifically, 90.3% of LABs exhibited hydrophilic properties that may promote adhesion to the cutaneous mucus, with the remaining isolates (9.7%) being hydrophobic in nature with a surface polarity compatible with colonisation of acidic, basic or both substrate types. We also found that 59.7% of LABs showed EPS synthesis and 66.1% produced biofilm at different levels: 21% weak, 29% moderate, and 16.1% strong. Together all these properties enhance colonisation of the host surface (mucus or epithelial cells) and may confer protective benefits against Bd through competitive exclusion. Correspondence analysis indicated that biofilm synthesis was LABs specific with high aggregating bacteria correlating with strong biofilm producers, and EPS producers being correlated to negative biofilm producing LABs. We performed Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD)-PCR analysis and demonstrated a higher degree of genetic diversity among rod-shaped pLAB than cocci. Based on the LAB genetic analysis and specific probiotic selection criteria that involve beneficial properties, we sequenced 16 pLAB which were identified as Pediococcus pentosaceus, Enterococcus thailandicus, Lactobacillus pentosus/L. plantarum, L. brevis, and L. curvatus. Compatibility assays performed with cLAB and the 16 species described above indicate that all tested LAB can be included in a mixed probiotic formula. Based on our analyses, we suggest that E. gallinarum CRL 1826, L. garvieae CRL 1828, and P. pentosaceus 15 and 18B represent optimal probiotic candidates for Bd control and mitigation.

Indexed as

AnimalsChytridiomycotaDNA, BacterialLactobacillalesMicrobiotaMycosesProbioticsRana catesbeianaRandom Amplified Polymorphic DNA TechniqueSkinDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID31560707
PMCPMC6764794
OpenAlexW2975503490

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.