Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32415515›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2021

Probiotic Properties of Lactobacilli and Their Ability to Inhibit the Adhesion of Enteropathogenic Bacteria to Caco-2 and HT-29 Cells.

Hugo Calixto Fonseca, Dirceu de Sousa Melo, Cíntia Lacerda Ramos, Disney Ribeiro Dias, Rosane Freitas Schwan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Veterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Multifunctional antimicrobial effects ofFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hugo Calixto FonsecaFood Science Department, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Brazil.
Dirceu de Sousa MeloBiology Department, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Brazil.
Cíntia Lacerda RamosDepartment of Basic Science, Federal University of Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, Brazil.
Disney Ribeiro DiasFood Science Department, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Brazil.
Rosane Freitas SchwanBiology Department, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Brazil. rschwan@ufla.br.ORCID 0000-0003-1320-8882
Universidade Federal de Lavras · BRUniversidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated the probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria using resistance, safety, and functional assays. A preliminary subtractive screening of nineteen strains was performed based on their survival in simulated gastric and intestinal juice, and cell surface characteristics (hydrophobicity and auto-aggregation). Five strains were selected for further characterization, which included the assessment of their co-aggregation to pathogens, phenol tolerance, antimicrobial activity, and safety. Moreover, their adhesion to Caco-2 and HT-29 cells and the ability to inhibit pathogenic bacteria adhesion were evaluated. All strains had high (≥ 80.0%) survival rates in gastric and intestinal juices. Among them, Lactobacillus brevis CCMA 1284, L. plantarum CCMA 0743, and L. plantarum CCMA 0359 exhibited higher hydrophobicity (95.33, 96.06, and 80.02%, respectively), while L. paracasei CCMA 0504 and L. paracasei CCMA 0505 had the highest auto-aggregation values (45.36 and 52.66%, respectively). However, these last two strains were positive for the DNAse test, which is a safety concern. The CCMA 0359 and CCMA 1284 strains did not show antimicrobial activity, while the CCMA 0505 strain had a higher percentage of adhesion (4.75%) to Caco-2 cells. In the simulated competition and exclusion assays, the CCMA 0743 strain was able to reduce Salmonella adhesion to both cells (Caco-2 and HT-29), but only the CCMA 0743 and CCMA 0505 strains inhibited Escherichia coli adhesion to HT-29 cells in the competition assay. According to the results of these evaluated attributes, this strain showed to be an excellent candidate for probiotic use.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionFatty AcidsProbioticsCaco-2 CellsEscherichia coliHT29 CellsHumansSalmonellaFatty Acidsphytomonic acidAntagonistic effectsBrazilian foodsEnteropathogenic Escherichia coliEpithelial cellsGastrointestinal tractSalmonella enteritidis

Identifiers

PMID32415515
OpenAlexW3025379244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.