ArticleFood science and biotechnology2023
Development of a selective medium for the enumeration of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria in food products.
Article in Food science and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici strains isolated from cattle gut show probiotic potential.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Development, functional profiling, and probiotic evaluation of indigenous LAB from Nigerian fermented foods: Antimicrobial mechanisms, in vivo validation, and applications in food preservation and mycotoxin risk reduction.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Infant gut microbiota coverage by different culture media.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Reformulation of Tunisian Sun-Dried Merguez with Camel Meat: Characterization of Physicochemical and Compositional Changes in Organic Acids, Fatty Acids, Volatile Compounds, and Minerals.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was conducted to develop a selective medium for enumerating LAB and Bifidobacteria in food samples. Thirteen media were evaluated to determine their suitability for selectively enumerating LAB (17 bacilli and 7 cocci) and Bifidobacteria (12 strains) under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. When BL, BCP, and mMRS were supplemented with propionic acid (5 ml/l) and adjusted to pH 5, the growth of all indicator microorganisms was inhibited; however, these media also inhibited the growth of certain LAB and Bifidobacterial strains. Using propionic acid, the pH levels of BL, BCP, and mMRS were adjusted to pH 5.2, 6.0, and 6.0, respectively. These media inhibited the growth of all indicator microorganisms, whereas they did not inhibit any of the LAB and Bifidobacteria strains under anaerobic conditions. Overall, BLP (pH 5.8) lacking blood showed significantly higher bacterial counts compared with other media in food products. Further analyses indicated that BLP (pH 5.8) was the most suitable medium for enumerating LAB and Bifidobacteria in food. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10068-022-01202-z.
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.