ArticleFolia microbiologica2024
Identification of safe putative probiotics from various food products.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Probiotic Dairy Innovations: Exploring Buffalo Milk Potential for Food Product Development.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025Review
- Current Progress and Future Trends of Genomics-Based Techniques for Food Adulteration Identification.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to isolate, identify, and assess the safety and functionality in vitro of putative probiotic bacterial strains. Isolation procedures were based on standard methods using elective and selective media. The isolates were identified by comparative 16S rRNA sequencing analysis while their safety was determined according to the safety tests recommended by the FAO/WHO such as antibiotic resistance, hemolysin, and biogenic amine production. Most of the isolates did not pass the in vitro safety tests; therefore, only Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (from ant intestine and cheese), Lacticaseibacillus paracasei (from goat milk and kimchi), Enterococcus faecium (from chili doenjang and vegetables with kimchi ingredients), Limosilactobacillus fermentum (from saliva), and Companilactobacillus alimentarius (from kimchi) were identified and selected for further studies. The isolates were further differentiated by rep-PCR and identified to the strain level by genotypic (16S rRNA) and phenotypic (Gen III) approaches. Subsequently, the strain tolerance to acid and bile was evaluated resulting in good viability after simulated gastrointestinal tract passage. Adhesion to mucin in vitro and the presence of mub, mapA, and ef-tu genes confirmed the adhesive potential of the strains and the results of features associated with adhesion such as hydrophobicity and zeta potential extended the insights. This study reflects the importance of fermented and non-fermented food products as a promising source of lactic acid bacteria with potential probiotic properties. Additionally, it aims to highlight the challenges associated with the selection of safe strains, which often fail in the in vitro tests, thus hindering the possibilities of "uncovering" novel and safe probiotic strains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38376735What 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.