ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Isolation and
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and Characterization ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Vaginal Probiotic Potential of the Nomadic Species Limosilactobacacillus fermentum Under Dysbiotic Vaginal Conditions: Population Genomic Insights and Anti-Pathogenic Efficacy of a Vaginal Isolate VL9.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Article
- Probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from canine and feline microbiota: functional profiling and host-adapted benefits.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- The Gut Microbiome and Metabolome of Domestic Cats Were Altered by the Oral Administration of Complex Probiotics.Biology · 2026Article
- Feline-DerivedMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- A Feline Milk-DrivedMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Protease sensitivity and stress adaptation of bioactive peptide-producing lactic acid bacteria: functional implications for food biopreservation.BMC biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Probiotics, which are beneficial to the host, have been shown to benefit the health of cats. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are commonly used probiotics, but most strains used for cats are not derived from cats, leading to reduced efficacy and poor adaptation to cats. The objective was to identify LAB with promising probiotic potential specific to cats. Method: LABs were isolated from fecal samples of 20 healthy cats. Gram staining and the survival rate in the simulated gastrointestinal tract were used for preliminary screening. Candidate strains were identified by 16S rDNA sequencing, and further evaluated for adhesion ability, growth characteristics, antibacterial activity, antioxidant capacity, and safety. Results: 24 Gram-positive isolates were identified, with 10 (F1-F10) showing robust viability in the simulated gastroenteric fluid. These 10 strains exhibited excellent adhesion to Caco-2 cells and strong auto-agglutination properties. They also possessed the capacity to antagonize and aggregate pathogens ( Conclusion: Our findings revealed that F4 (
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.