Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36854714›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Bacillus subtilis isolates from camel milk as probiotic candidates.

Roya Daneshazari, Mohammad Rabbani Khorasgani, Afrouzossadat Hosseini-Abari, June-Hyung Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Safety Evaluation ofFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Probiotic properties ofFood science and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Microorganisms · 2023
    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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Roya DaneshazariDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Science and Technology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Mohammad Rabbani KhorasganiDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Science and Technology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. m.rabbani@biol.ui.ac.ir.
Afrouzossadat Hosseini-AbariDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Science and Technology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
June-Hyung KimDepartment of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Dong-a University, Busan, Korea.
University of Isfahan · IRDong-A University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently Bacillus spp. has gained much attention as potential probiotics due to the production of resistant cells. So, this research is purposeful for evaluation of probiotic characteristics of Bacillus isolates from camel milk as a suitable source for growth and isolation of microorganisms that can be candidate to be used as probiotic. First, forty-eight colonies were screened by using morphological and biochemical analysis. Among the isolates, two of them were recognized as Bacillus subtilis CM1 and CM2 by partial 16SrRNA sequencing that, probiotic potentials of them were evaluated. Both of them, in the preliminary safety screening, were found negative for hemolysis and lecithinase activity. Also, in vitro characteristics such as acid, bile salts and artificial gastric juice resistant, cell surface hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, antioxidant characteristics, and adherent capability to HT-29 cells were determined for them approximately in the range of other probiotic strains. Two strains were susceptible to various antibiotics and enterotoxigenic activities were not detected by PCR which means isolated Bacillus strains could be classified as safe. Altogether, results demonstrate that Bacillus CM1 and CM2 strains could have the potential of consideration as probiotics, however more extensive in vitro/vivo studies are needed.

Indexed as

BacillusBacillus subtilisAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCamelusMilkAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID36854714
PMCPMC9974938
OpenAlexW4322719228

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.