Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34665429›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2023

Evaluation of Potential Probiotic Properties of Lactobacillus and Bacillus Strains Derived from Various Sources for Their Potential Use in Swine Feeding.

Nuntiya Pahumunto, Gunnar Dahlen, Rawee Teanpaisan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. In Silico and In Vitro Characterization ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Microbiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  14. Characterization of the Effects of a Novel Probiotic onAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Pharmaceutics · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Nuntiya PahumuntoCommon Oral Diseases and Epidemiology Research Center, Hat Yai, Thailand.
Gunnar DahlenDepartment of Oral Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Rawee TeanpaisanCommon Oral Diseases and Epidemiology Research Center, Hat Yai, Thailand. rawee.t@psu.ac.th.ORCID 0000-0002-4620-4610

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Beneficial effects of probiotics are relevant to the various potential properties of individual strains, and they may also relate to the original sources of the probiotic strains. This study aimed to characterize the potential probiotic properties of the strains originating from various sources for probiotics use in swine feeding. A total of 9 potential probiotic strains, seven lactobacilli and 2 bacilli, were examined for antimicrobial production against swine pathogens, adhesion and anti-adhesion of potential probiotic strains to IPEC-J2 cells, aggregation ability, host defense peptide expression, and hemolytic assay. The results highlight that all strains derived from different sources could exhibit probiotic properties, although different abilities were observed. L. rhamnosus SD11 exhibited the highest inhibitory effect against all pathogens compared to other strains. Bacillus licheniformis KMP-9, B. subtilis KMP-N004, and L. fermentum SD7 gave the highest internalization and that related to high abilities of exclusion, competition, and displacement inhibition to pathogens. Such strains also gave a higher co-aggregation to all pathogens compared to other potential probiotic strains. L. rhamnosus GG, L. fermentum SD7, L. rhamnosus SD4, and B. subtilis KMP-N004 had significantly higher pBD-2 mRNA expression than other strains. None of potential probiotic strains showed hemolytic activity. In conclusion, the strains derived from either humans or animals possessed desirable probiotic properties including inhibition against porcine pathogens, adhesion capacity to porcine enterocytes, anti-adhesion pathogens to porcine enterocytes, and modulated innate immunity. Results indicate that these probiotic strains may be good candidates for use in swine feeding to reduce the risk of infection.

Indexed as

BacillusProbioticsAnimalsBacterial AdhesionHumansLactobacillusSwineAdhesionAggregationAnti-adhesionAnti-microbialInnate immuneIPEC-J2ProbioticsSwine

Identifiers

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.