ArticleCurrent microbiology2022
Characterization of Some Microorganisms from Human Stool Samples and Determination of Their Effects on CT26 Colorectal Carcinoma Cell Line.
Article in Current microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global prevalence and trends of fluconazole resistance in non-albicans Candida species: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Physicochemical properties and survival assessment of potential probiotics in a novel dairy drink during storage.Food science & nutrition · 2023Article
- Antiproliferative effects of mesenchymal stem cells carrying Newcastle disease virus and Lactobacillus Casei extract on CT26 Cell line: synergistic effects in cancer therapy.Infectious agents and cancer · 2023Article
- Lactobacilli metabolites restore E-cadherin and suppress MMP9 in cervical cancer cells.Current research in toxicology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The present study aimed to isolate and identify the potential probiotic, pathobiont, and pathogenic microorganisms in the stool samples of 12 healthy individuals and evaluate their in vitro effects on cancer formation. A total of 83 strains were isolated from the stool samples and identified using MALDI-Biotyper. Fourteen of the isolates were identified as Candida spp., three isolates were identified as Cryptococcus neoformans, 55 isolates were identified as lactic acid bacteria, and the remaining isolates belonged to different 11 bacterial genera. Important microbial properties for cancer prevention and some probiotic properties were examined. All strains maintained their viability under acidic conditions and in media containing bile salts. Of the bacterial strains, 62.5% were resistant to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, gentamicin, erythromycin, kanamycin, penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline, and vancomycin. All yeast strains were resistant to ketoconazole and susceptible to nystatin. The susceptibility of the strains to fluconazole, voriconazole, amphotericin B, and itraconazole varied. Fifty-nine percent of the strains produced EPS and 21.7% showed proteolytic activity (PA). Of the strains, 15.7% both produced exopolysaccharides (EPS) and had PA. The antioxidant activity (AOA) varied depending on the strains. The pathobiont and pathogenic microorganisms promoted tumor formation, while potential probiotic microorganisms had a suppressive effect on tumor formation (P > 0.01). One yeast (Candida kefyr MK17) and three lactic acid bacteria strains (Lacticaseibacillus paracasei MK73, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MK55, Limosilactobacillus mucosae MK45) have superior potential thanks to their anticarcinogenic properties as well as tolerance to gastrointestinal tract conditions. Stool samples of each individual contain various potential probiotic, pathobiont, and pathogenic microorganisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.