ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2021
Impact of Potential Probiotic Lactobacillus Strains on Host Growth and Development in a Drosophila melanogaster Model.
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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety Assessment of the Potential Probiotic Bacterium Limosilactobacillus fermentum J23 Using the Mexican Fruit Fly (Anastrepha ludens Loew, Diptera: Tephritidae) as a Novel In Vivo Model.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2024Article
- Fermented Chinese Herbs Improve the Growth and Immunity of Growing Pigs through Regulating Colon Microbiota and Metabolites.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lactobacillus paracasei SD1, Lactobacillus rhamnosus SD11, and Lactobacillus gasseri SD12 were proposed as potential probiotics for oral health. However, the effects of them on host physiology are still unknown. This study aimed to select strains that can promote host growth and development in monocolonized Drosophila model compared with axenic and the commercial Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG-treated flies. The morphogenesis and growth of axenic Drosophila melanogaster were assessed from embryo to adult stage when provided with each probiotic strain-supplemented food. The colonization and persistence of probiotic in fly gut were also evaluated. The results indicated that axenic condition caused the lowest adult weight and emergence rate. All probiotic groups had higher weight than axenic group. Lact. rhamnosus SD11 group presented high adult emergence rate equivalent to Lact. rhamnosus GG group, which is significantly higher than the others. However, Lact. gasseri SD12 group had significantly lower adult weight and emergence rate when compared with Lact. rhamnosus GG group. The gut probiotics levels were rapidly increased within the first day after receiving probiotics. After probiotic cessation, their number in gut decreased and was maintained at low level, except for Lact. gasseri SD12, which completely vanished since day one. In conclusion, Lact. paracasei SD1, Lact. rhamnosus SD11, and Lact. rhamnosus GG can affect morphogenesis and weight of flies when fed since immature stage and have short period gut colonization. The findings of this study could possibly imply comparable health-promoting effects between Lact. paracasei SD1 and Lact. rhamnosus SD11 to commercial strain in Drosophila model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.