Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32941534›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Antimicrobial activity of organic acids against Campylobacter spp. and development of combinations-A synergistic effect?

Elisa Peh, Sophie Kittler, Felix Reich, Corinna Kehrenberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A naturally isolated symbioticCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Therapeutic and protective approaches to combatFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Food science and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elisa PehInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6573-4916
Sophie KittlerInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Felix ReichInstitute for Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Corinna KehrenbergInstitute for Veterinary Food Science, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8556-4080
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DEJustus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contaminated poultry meat is considered to be the main source of human infection with Campylobacter spp., a pathogen that asymptomatically colonizes broiler chickens during fattening and contaminates carcasses during slaughter. To prevent or reduce the colonization of broiler flocks with Campylobacter spp., applying different organic acids, especially in combinations, via feed or drinking water seems to be a promising approach. However, only very few combinations of organic acids have been tested for their antibacterial efficacy against Campylobacter spp. Therefore, the in vitro susceptibility of 30 Campylobacter spp. isolates (20 C. jejuni and ten C. coli) to ten organic acids and ten combinations was determined. The testing of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values was performed at pH 6.0 and 7.3 by using the broth microdilution method and included the following organic acids: Caprylic acid, sorbic acid, caproic acid, benzoic acid, ascorbic acid, propionic acid, acetic acid, formic acid, fumaric acid and tartaric acid and combinations thereof. The lowest MIC values were seen for caprylic acid (MIC range at pH 7.3: 0.5-2 mmol/L) and sorbic acid (MIC range at pH 7.3: 1-4 mmol/L). One to two dilution steps lower MIC values were determined at the lower pH value of 6.0. Furthermore, ten combinations consisting of three to five organic acids were developed. In addition to the tested antibacterial activity, other criteria were included such as approval as feed additives, reported synergistic effects and chemical properties. For nine of ten combinations, the MIC90 values of the organic acids decreased 1.25- to 241.5-fold compared to the MIC90 values for the individual substances. Furthermore, nine of ten combinations exhibited synergistic activities against two or more of the tested C. jejuni and C. coli isolates. A combination of caprylic acid, sorbic acid and caproic acid exhibited synergistic activities against the largest number of Campylobacter spp. isolates (six C. jejuni and four C. coli) with fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) indices (∑FIC) ranging from 0.33 to 1.42. This study shows in vitro synergistic activities of different organic acids in combinations against the major Campylobacter species and could therefore be a promising basis for reducing Campylobacter spp. in vivo.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCampylobacterCaproatesCaprylatesDrug SynergismFood PreservativesFood SafetyMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPoultrySorbic AcidAnti-Bacterial AgentsCaproatesCaprylatesFood Preservativeshexanoic acidoctanoic acidSorbic Acid

Identifiers

PMID32941534
PMCPMC7497993
OpenAlexW3087384602

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.