Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351550›Full record

ArticleJournal, genetic engineering & biotechnology2021

Molecular identification and in vitro evaluation of probiotic functional properties of some Egyptian lactic acid bacteria and yeasts.

Al-Shimaa Ibrahim Ahmed, Gihan Mohamed El Moghazy, Tarek Ragab Elsayed, Hanan Abdel Latif Goda, Galal Mahmoud Khalafalla

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Targeted Screening ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  8. The Influence ofIndian journal of microbiology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Al-Shimaa Ibrahim AhmedAgricultural Research Centre, Regional Centre for Food and Feed, Giza, 12619, Egypt.
Gihan Mohamed El MoghazyAgricultural Research Centre, Regional Centre for Food and Feed, Giza, 12619, Egypt.
Tarek Ragab ElsayedAgricultural Microbiology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, 12613, Egypt.
Hanan Abdel Latif GodaAgricultural Microbiology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, 12613, Egypt. hanan.goda@agr.cu.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3155-0358
Galal Mahmoud KhalafallaAgricultural Microbiology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, 12613, Egypt.
Cairo University · EGAgricultural Research Center · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe health-promoting effects along with global economic importance of consuming food products supplemented with probiotic microorganisms encouraged the researchers to discover new probiotics.

resultsFourteen lactic acid bacterial isolates were identified as Enterococcus mediterraneensis, Lactobacillus fermentum, and Streptococcus lutetiensis by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and in vitro characterized for their actual probiotic potential. All E. mediterraneensis isolates were resistant to clindamycin, whereas Lb. fermentum isolates were resistant to ampicillin, clindamycin, and vancomycin. The E. mediterraneensis and Lb. fermentum isolates displayed high overall digestive survival, ranged from 1.35 ± 0.06 to 32.73 ± 0.84% and from 2.01 ± 0.01 to 23.9 ± 1.85%, respectively. All isolates displayed cell surface hydrophobicity, ranged between 15.44 ± 6.72 and 39.79 ± 2.87%. The strongest auto-aggregation capability, higher than 40%, was observed for most E. mediterraneensis and Lb. fermentum isolates. The E. mediterraneensis isolates (L2, L12, and L15), Lb. fermentum (L8, L9, and L10), and Strep. lutetiensis (L14) exhibited the greatest co-aggregation with Salmonella typhimurium, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus cereus. Fifty-seven and fourteen hundredth percent of E. mediterraneensis isolates could be considered bacteriocinogenic against E. coli O157:H7, B. cereus, and S. aureus.

conclusionThis study is the first one to isolate Enterococcus mediterraneensis in Egypt and to characterize it as new species of probiotics globally. According to the results, E. mediterraneensis (L2, L12, and L15), Lb. fermentum (L8, L9, and L10), and Strep. lutetiensis (L14) are the most promising in vitro probiotic candidates.

Indexed as

Enterococcus mediterraneensisFunctional characteristicsLactobacillus fermentumProbioticsStreptococcus lutetiensis

Identifiers

PMID34351550
PMCPMC8342691
OpenAlexW3193109611

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.