Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34982415›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2022

Selection of Beneficial Bacterial Strains With Potential as Oral Probiotic Candidates.

Hamin Kim, Joanna Ivy Irorita Fugaban, Wilhelm Heinrich Holzapfel, Svetoslav Dimitrov Todorov

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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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. Antioxidant Effects and Probiotic Properties ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Effects of the Probiotic,Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hamin KimProBacLab, Department of Advanced Convergence, Handong Global University, Pohang, Gyeongbuk, 37554, Republic of Korea.
Joanna Ivy Irorita FugabanProBacLab, Department of Advanced Convergence, Handong Global University, Pohang, Gyeongbuk, 37554, Republic of Korea.
Wilhelm Heinrich HolzapfelProBacLab, Department of Advanced Convergence, Handong Global University, Pohang, Gyeongbuk, 37554, Republic of Korea.
Svetoslav Dimitrov TodorovProBacLab, Department of Advanced Convergence, Handong Global University, Pohang, Gyeongbuk, 37554, Republic of Korea. slavi310570@abv.bg.ORCID 0000-0002-6377-3305
Handong Global University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to select beneficial strains from the oral cavity of healthy volunteers and to evaluate these as potential oral probiotic candidates. The selection process was based on the isolation, differentiation, identification, and safety assessment of LAB strains, followed by a series of experiments for the selection of appropriate candidates with beneficial properties. In the screening procedure, 8 isolates from the oral cavity of a Caucasian volunteers were identified as Streptococcus (Str.) salivarius ST48HK, ST59HK, ST61HK, and ST62HK; Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (Lb.) (Lactobacillus plantarum) ST63HK and ST66HK; Latilactobacillus sakei (Lb.) (Lactobacillus sakei) ST69HK; and Lactobacillus (Lb.) gasseri ST16HK based on 16S rRNA sequencing. Physiological and phenotypic tests did not show hemolytic, proteinase, or gelatinase activities, as well as production of biogenic amines. In addition, screening for the presence of efaA, cyt, IS16, esp, asa1, and hyl virulence genes and vancomycin-resistant genes confirmed safety of the studied strains. Moreover, cell-to-cell antagonism indicated that the strains were able to inhibit the growth of tested representatives from the genera Bacillus, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, and Staphylococcus in a strain-specific manner. Various beneficial genes were detected including gad gene, which codes for GABA production. Furthermore, cell surface hydrophobicity levels ranging between 1.58% and 85% were determined. The studied strains have also demonstrated high survivability in a broad range of pH (4.0-8.0). The interaction of the 8 putative probiotic candidates with drugs from different groups and oral hygiene products were evaluated for their MICs. This is to determine if the application of these drugs and hygiene products can negatively affect the oral probiotic candidates. Overall, antagonistic properties, safety assessment, and high rates of survival in the presence of these commonly used drugs and oral hygiene products indicate Str. salivarius ST48HK, ST59HK, ST61HK, and ST62HK; Lb. plantarum ST63HK and ST66HK; Lb. sakei ST69HK; and Lb. gasseri ST16HK as promising oral cavity probiotic candidates.

Indexed as

Lactiplantibacillus plantarumProbioticsHumansLactobacillusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBacteriocinsBeneficialLactiplantibacillus plantarumLactobacillus gasseriLatilactobacillus sakeiOral cavityStreptococcus salivarius

Identifiers

PMID34982415
OpenAlexW4205613067

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.