Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37863838›Full record

ArticleFEMS microbiology letters2023

Delivery of E. coli Nissle to the mouse gut by mucoadhesive microcontainers does not improve its competitive ability against strains linked to ulcerative colitis.

Pi Westi Bondegaard, Anders Meyer Torp, Priscila Guerra, Katja Ann Kristensen, Juliane Fjelrad Christfort, Karen Angeliki Krogfelt, Line Hagner Nielsen, Kinga Zor, Anja Boisen, Martin Steen Mortensen and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FEMS microbiology letters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pi Westi BondegaardNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Anders Meyer TorpNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Priscila GuerraNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Katja Ann KristensenNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Juliane Fjelrad ChristfortDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Karen Angeliki KrogfeltDepartment of Science and Environment, Molecular and Medical Biology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, 4000, Denmark.
Line Hagner NielsenDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Kinga ZorDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Anja BoisenDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Martin Steen MortensenNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.
Martin Iain BahlNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1579-8038
Tine Rask LichtNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6399-9574
Technical University of Denmark · DKRoskilde University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), administration of the probiotic E. coli Nissle (EcN) holds promise for alleviation of disease symptoms. The mechanisms are unclear, but it has been hypothesised that a capacity of the probiotic to outcompete potentially detrimental UC-associated E. coli strains plays an important role. However, this could previously not be confirmed in a mouse model of competition between EcN and two UC-associated strains, as reported by Petersen et al. 2011. In the present study, we re-evaluated the idea, hypothesising that delivery of EcN by a micro device dosing system (microcontainers), designed for delivery into the intestinal mucus, could support colonisation and confer a competition advantage compared to classical oral dosing. Six groups of mice were pre-colonised with one of two UC-associated E. coli strains followed by oral delivery of EcN, either in capsules containing microcontainers with freeze-dried EcN powder, capsules containing freeze-dried EcN powder, or as a fresh sucrose suspension. Co-colonisation between the probiotic and the disease-associated strains was observed regardless of dosing method, and no competition advantages linked to microcontainer delivery were identified within this setup. Other approaches are thus needed if the competitive capacity of EcN in the gut should be improved.

Indexed as

Colitis, UlcerativeProbioticsAnimalsEscherichia coliHumansMicePowdersPowdersbacterial competitionE. coli Nisslemicrocontainer deliverymicro device dosing systemprobioticsulcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID37863838
PMCPMC10612143
OpenAlexW4387803832

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.