Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33715113›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2021

Isolation, Characterization and Biosafety Evaluation of Lactobacillus Fermentum OK with Potential Oral Probiotic Properties.

Soyon Mann, Myeong Soo Park, Tony V Johnston, Geun Eog Ji, Keum Taek Hwang, Seockmo Ku

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 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Effect ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Effect of probiotics on pain and ulceration in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Growth Conditions InfluenceBiomedicines · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022
    Article
  14. Characterization ofScience progress
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Soyon MannDepartment of Food and Nutrition, and Research Institute of Human Ecology, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Korea.
Myeong Soo ParkResearch Center, BIFIDO Co., Ltd, Hongcheon, 25117, Korea.
Tony V JohnstonFermentation Science Program, School of Agriculture, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA.
Geun Eog JiResearch Center, BIFIDO Co., Ltd, Hongcheon, 25117, Korea.
Keum Taek HwangDepartment of Food and Nutrition, and Research Institute of Human Ecology, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Korea. keum@snu.ac.kr.
Seockmo KuFermentation Science Program, School of Agriculture, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA. seockmo.ku@mtsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2661-5073
Middle Tennessee State University · USSeoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been reported that certain probiotic bacteria have inhibitory effects against oral pathogens. Lactobacillus spp. have been studied and used as probiotics globally, but due to difficulties with laboratory cultivation and experimentation with oral microorganisms, there are few studies on Lactobacillus spp. isolated from the oral cavity being used against oral pathogens. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biosafety and inhibitory effects of Lactobacillus fermentum OK as a potential oral biotherapeutic probiotic against oral pathogens. L. fermentum OK was evaluated based on microbial and genetic characteristics. A 5% dilution of L. fermentum OK culture supernatant showed that 60% inhibition against the growth of S. mutans and L. fermentum OK displayed significant inhibitory effects against the growth of Fusobacterium nucleatum, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Streptococcus gordonii, and Streptococcus sanguinis. However, proliferation of L. fermentum OK, when co-cultured with harmful oral bacteria, was retarded. L. fermentum OK was shown to produce 1130 μmol/L hydrogen peroxide, aggregate efficiently with Streptococcus sobrinus, S. gordonii, S. mutans, S. sanguinis, and P. gingivalis, and reduce S. mutans that produced artificial dental plaque by 97.9%. The in vitro cell adhesion capacity of L. fermentum OK to an oral epithelial cell line was 3.1 cells per cell and the cell adhesion of F. nucleatum and S. mutans decreased strongly in protection and displacement assays. L. fermentum OK was evaluated for safety using ammonia production, biogenic amine production, hemolytic property, mucin degradation testing, antibiotic susceptibility, and whole genome sequencing (WGS). Based on this study, L. fermentum OK appears to be a safe and bioactive lactobacterial food ingredient, starter culture, and/or probiotic microorganism for human oral health.

Indexed as

Limosilactobacillus fermentumProbioticsHumansAntimicrobial effectBiosafety evaluationLactobacillus fermentumOral microorganisms

Identifiers

PMID33715113
OpenAlexW3137972317

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.