Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32829420›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2021

Characterization of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Raw Buffalo Milk: a Screening for Novel Probiotic Candidates and Their Transcriptional Response to Acid Stress.

Gabriela Merker Breyer, Nathasha Noronha Arechavaleta, Franciele Maboni Siqueira, Amanda de Souza da Motta

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Probiotic Dairy Innovations: Exploring Buffalo Milk Potential for Food Product Development.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Effect of ProbioticNutrients · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Gabriela Merker BreyerInstitute of Health Science, Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 222/500 Sarmento Leite Street, Porto Alegre, 90050-170, Brazil.
Nathasha Noronha ArechavaletaInstitute of Health Science, Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 222/500 Sarmento Leite Street, Porto Alegre, 90050-170, Brazil.
Franciele Maboni SiqueiraVeterinary Sciences Faculty, Veterinary Pathology Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 9090 Bento Gonçalves Avenue, Porto Alegre, 91540-000, Brazil.
Amanda de Souza da MottaInstitute of Health Science, Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 222/500 Sarmento Leite Street, Porto Alegre, 90050-170, Brazil. amanda.motta@ufrgs.br.ORCID 0000-0001-8637-3868

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are important microorganisms for the food industry due to their functional activity, as starters and potential probiotic strains. With that in mind, we explored the LAB diversity in raw buffalo milk, screening for novel potential probiotic strains. A total of 11 strains were identified by combination of MALDI-TOF and partial 16S rDNA sequencing and selected as potential probiotic candidates. Bacteria innocuity assessment was performed by determining antimicrobial susceptibility and the presence of virulence factors. Antagonism activity against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus was assessed, as well as milk proteolytic activity and exopolysaccharides production. Seven strains were identified as innocuous and two of them, Lactobacillus rhamnosus LB1.5 and Lactobacillus paracasei LB6.4 were selected for further probiotic potential analyses. Both strains demonstrated adhesion ability to Caco-2 cells, coaggregated with S. aureus and E. coli and maintained cell viability after gastrointestinal simulation in vitro, suggesting their probiotic potential. Furthermore, the transcriptional response of Lact. rhamnosus LB1.5 and Lact. paracasei LB6.4 to in vitro acid stress was assessed by RT-qPCR targeting seven genes related to adhesion, aggregation, stress tolerance, DNA repair and central metabolism. The association between the transcriptional responses and the maintenance of cell viability after gastrointestinal simulation highlights the genetic ability as probiotic of the two selected strains. Finally, we have concluded that Lact. rhamnosus LB1.5 and Lact. paracasei LB6.4 are important probiotic candidates to further in vivo studies.

Indexed as

LactobacillalesProbioticsAcidsAnimalsAntibiosisBuffaloesCaco-2 CellsEscherichia coliHumansMilkStaphylococcus aureusAcids16S rDNAAcid stressGut simulationMALDI-TOFRT-qPCRSequencingVirulence genes

Identifiers

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.