ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024
Probiotic
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. 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.
- High Probiotic Potential of Soil-Derived Bacillus safensis, Bacillus pumilus and Bacillus zhangzhouensis Strains: In Vitro Safety Assessment and Functional Characterization.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Article
- From One-Size-Fits-All to Precision Medicine: The Promise of Personalized Probiotics.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Assessing the effect of Bacillus rugosus NM007 as a novel probiotic strain on growth performance, hemato-biochemical profile, immune response, digestive enzymes and intestinal histomorphology of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Honeysuckle-Derived Exosome-Like Nanovesicles Protect Against Acute Liver Failure by Modulating Gut Microbiota.International journal of nanomedicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Gut microbiota dysbiosis significantly impacts ulcerative colitis (UC) progression and exacerbation. Probiotics show promise in UC management. This study evaluated the effects of different doses of Methods: UC was induced by allowing mice free access to a 3% DSS solution for 7 days, with concurrent daily oral gavage of either a low (LV149-L, 1 × 10 Results: LV149 significantly improved pathological symptoms, including weight loss and disease activity index (DAI), and reduced colon shortening in a dose-dependent manner and inflammatory damage. The intervention also restored gut barrier function by upregulating mucins, goblet cell counts, and tight junction proteins (ZO-1, occludin, and claudin-1) in colonic tissue, along with reducing serum lipopolysaccharide (LPS) levels. Notably, only the LV149-H significantly decreased the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6, while both doses increased the expression of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 in a dose-dependent in colonic tissue. LV149 further modulated the gut microbiota, increasing beneficial bacteria and reducing pathogenic populations. Transcriptomic analysis indicated that LV149-L may exert gut repair effects via the IL-17 signaling pathway, whereas LV149-H appears to act through the JAK-STAT signaling pathway. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that LV149, particularly at a higher dose, effectively mitigated DSS-induced colonic injury by modulating gut microbiota, enhancing gut barrier integrity, and reducing inflammation. The dose-dependent effects underscored LV149-H's potential as a therapeutic agent for UC due to its stronger anti-inflammatory properties and gut-protective effects.
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.