ArticleCurrent genetics2023
Insights from metagenome-assembled genomes on the genetic stability and safety of over-the-counter probiotic products.
Article in Current genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The demand for and acceptance of probiotics is determined by their quality and safety. Illumina NGS sequencing and analytics were used to examine eight marketed probiotics. Up to the species level, sequenced DNA was taxonomically identified, and relative abundances were determined using Kaiju. The genomes were constructed using GTDB and validated through PATRICK and TYGS. A FastTree 2 phylogenetic tree was constructed using several type strain sequences from relevant species. Bacteriocin and ribosomally synthesized polypeptide (RiPP) genes were discovered, and a safety check was performed to test for toxins, antibiotic resistance, and genetic drift genes. Except for two products with unclaimed species, the labeling was taxonomically correct. In three product formulations, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Limosilactobacillus reuteri, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei, and Bifidobacterium animalis exhibited two to three genomic alterations, while Streptococcus equinus was found in one. TYGS and GDTB discovered E. faecium and L. paracasei in distinctly different ways. All the bacteria tested had the genetic repertoire to tolerate GIT transit, although some exhibited antibiotic resistance, and one strain had two virulence genes. Except for Bifidobacterium strains, the others revealed a variety of bacteriocins and ribosomally synthesized polypeptides (RiPP), 92% of which were unique and non-homologous to known ones. Plasmids and mobile genetic elements are present in strains of L. reuteri (NPLps01.et_L.r and NPLps02.uf_L.r), Lactobacillus delbrueckii (NPLps01.et_L.d), Streptococcus thermophilus (NPLps06.ab_S.t), and E. faecium (NPLps07.nf_E.f). Our findings support the use of metagenomics to build better and efficient production and post-production practices for probiotic quality and safety assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37237157What 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.