ArticleMolecular nutrition & food research2025
Unlocking Probiotic Potential: Physicochemical Approaches to Evaluate Probiotic Bacterial Adhesion Potential to the Intestinal Tract.
Article in Molecular nutrition & food research, 2025. 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.
- Evaluation ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Unlocking Probiotic Potential: Physicochemical Approaches to Evaluate Probiotic Bacterial Adhesion Potential to the Intestinal Tract.Molecular nutrition & food research · 2025Article
- Rosaceae Honey: Antimicrobial Activity and Prebiotic Properties.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Engineered probiotics for inflammatory bowel disease therapy: mechanisms, delivery strategies, and precision medicine.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacterial adhesion in the gut is critical to evaluate their effectiveness as probiotics. Understanding the bacterial adhesion within the complex gut environment is challenging. This study explores the adhesion mechanisms and the adhesion potential of five selected bacterial strains (Escherichia coli, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Faecalibacterium duncaniae, Bifidobacterium longum, and Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis) at the initial stages when bacterial cells arriving in the gut, using different physicochemical approaches. Bacterial morphology, rheology, and surface properties were evaluated. Surprisingly, previous methods such as bacterial adhesion to hydrocarbon and the interfacial tension between bacterial suspensions and mineral oil did not fully capture the bacterial adhesion to intestinal mucus. Consequently, this study introduced a novel approach to assess bacterial adhesion to mucus, based on contact angle measurements, calculation of surface tension, and work of adhesion. Interestingly, both small and large intestinal mucus are rather hydrophilic, and thus highly hydrophilic bacteria such as E. coli and B. infantis tend to adhere better. Additionally, a multicriteria evaluation of bacterial adhesion to the gut, from the bulk liquid transport stage until the irreversible adhesion, was proposed. E. coli and B. infantis demonstrated the highest overall adhesion potential in the intestinal tract, followed by Lpb. plantarum, B. longum, and F. duncaniae, respectively. This work contributed original physicochemical approaches to comprehensively examine bacterial adhesion in the gut.
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.