Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40231499›Full record

ReviewCurrent pharmaceutical biotechnology2026

Interaction Between

Ahmad Nasser, Shiva Jahanbakhshi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current pharmaceutical biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ahmad NasserDepartment of pathobiology, School of public health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shiva JahanbakhshiDepartment of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The term "Microbiota" refers to the vast array of symbiotic microorganisms that coexist with their hosts in practically all organs. However, the microbiota must obtain nutrition and minerals from its host to survive; instead, they produce beneficial compounds to protect the host and regulate the immune system. Conversely, pathogenic bacteria utilize their enzymes to independently gain sustenance through an invasive process without almost any beneficial compound production. One of the fully equipped pathogens, Staphylococcus aureus, is present in nearly every organ and possesses a variety of defense and invasion systems including an enzyme, a mineral collection system, a system for detecting environmental conditions, and broad toxins. The microbiota properly can defend its kingdom against S. aureus; however, if necessary, the host immune system is alerted against the pathogen, so this system also acts against the pathogen, a game that can ultimately lead to the death of the pathogen. However, S. aureus can change the host's conditions in its favor by changing the host's conditions and causing inflammation, a condition that cannot be tolerated by the microbiota. In this review, we will explain how microbiota defend against S. aureus.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusAnimalsHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansSymbiosisantimicrobial peptidesbacteriocinshost microbial interactionLactobacillusMicrobiotaStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.