ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024
Genome sequence and evaluation of safety and probiotic potential of
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Probiotic characterization of Lactobacillus helveticus BGTRM7-58 from Khiki cheese: safety, antimicrobial activity, antioxidant capacity, and anti-biofilm effects against Staphylococcus aureus.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Probiotic potential of Lactobacillus acidophilus TMPC 41127 isolated from traditional cheese in inhibiting Salmonella Typhi biofilms and virulence genes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Safety Assessment ofMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Evaluating Good Husbandry Practices and Organic Fermented Additives for Coccidiosis Control in a Pilot Study Using Slow-Growing Broilers.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Whole-Genome Sequence Analysis, Probiotic Potential, and Safety Assessment of the Marine BacteriumMarine drugs · 2025Article
- Modulation of the gut-bone axis:Frontiers in immunology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: A comprehensive safety assessment of potential probiotic strains was essential for their application in the food industry. This article systematically evaluated the probiotic characteristics, whole-genome sequence analysis and safety of Methods: Firstly, the two strains of lactic acid bacteria selected were identified. Secondly, whole-genome sequencing was performed on LC86 and LC89, and their antibiotic resistance, pathogenicity, and virulence genes were analyzed. We tested various properties of the two strains, included tolerance, cell adhesion, hemolytic activity, catalase activity, gelatin hydrolysis, arginine hydrolysis ability, bile salt hydrolysis capacity, mucin degradation, bioamine, D-/L-lactic acid production and antibiotic susceptibility, to confirm the safety of LC86 and LC89 both Results: The two strains selected were identified as Conclusion: The experimental results above demonstrated the probiotic characteristics and safety of LC86 and LC89, indicating their potential as candidates for probiotics for human and animal applications.
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.