Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34458959›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2022

In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 Against Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli and Identification of Novel Probiotic-Derived Bioactive Peptides.

Dipak Kathayat, Gary Closs, Yosra A Helmy, Loic Deblais, Vishal Srivastava, Gireesh Rajashekara

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Utilizing an In Vitro Fermentation Model to Assess Probiotics onAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  7. Microorganisms · 2025
    Article
  8. Antibiotic Alternatives and Next-Generation Therapeutics forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. The probioticInfection and immunity · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Effects ofFrontiers in immunology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Dipak KathayatCenter for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA.
Gary ClossCenter for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA.
Yosra A HelmyCenter for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA.
Loic DeblaisCenter for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA.
Vishal SrivastavaCenter for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA.
Gireesh RajashekaraCenter for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA. rajashekara.2@osu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2443-6733
The Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC), an extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC), causes colibacillosis in poultry and is also a potential foodborne zoonotic pathogen. Currently, APEC infections in poultry are controlled by antibiotic medication; however, the emergence of multi-drug-resistant APEC strains and increased restrictions on the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals necessitate the development of new antibiotic alternative therapies. Here, we tested the anti-APEC activity of multiple commensal and probiotic bacteria in an agar-well diffusion assay and identified Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 producing strong zone of inhibition against APEC. In co-culture assay, L. rhamnosus GG and B. lactis Bb12 completely inhibited the APEC growth by 24 h. Further investigation revealed that antibacterial product(s) in the culture supernatants of L. rhamnosus GG and B. lactis Bb12 were responsible for the anti-APEC activity. The analysis of culture supernatants using LC-MS/MS identified multiple novel bioactive peptides (VQAAQAGDTKPIEV, AFDNTDTSLDSTFKSA, VTDTSGKAGTTKISNV, and AESSDTNLVNAKAA) in addition to the production of lactic acid. The oral administration (10

Indexed as

Bifidobacterium animalisEscherichia coli InfectionsLacticaseibacillus rhamnosusPoultry DiseasesProbioticsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsChickensChromatography, LiquidEscherichia coliPeptidesPoultryTandem Mass SpectrometryAnti-Bacterial AgentsPeptidesAntibiotic alternativesAPECChickensL. rhamnosus GGPeptidesProbiotics

Identifiers

PMID34458959
OpenAlexW3198483984

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.