ArticleScientific reports2025
Industrial production and functional profiling of probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici 72 N for potential use as a swine feed additive.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Genomics and Phenotypic Analysis ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Optimization of fermentation medium for advancing postbiotic antibacterial activity.AMB Express · 2026Article
- Potent Probiotic YeastACS omega · 2026Article
- Cost-effective medium optimization and functional enhancement ofVeterinary world · 2025Article
- Next-Generation Wound Care: A Scoping Review on Probiotic, Prebiotic, Synbiotic, and Postbiotic Cutaneous Formulations.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to achieve industrial-scale production of the Thai native swine-derived probiotic strain Pediococcus acidilactici 72 N (P72N) using a cost-effective, food-grade modified medium, and to assess the efficacy of this medium by evaluating the probiotic's functional characteristics and metabolomic profile. Conventional and statistical optimization techniques were used to screen food-grade carbon sources (glucose, dextrose, sucrose) and nitrogen sources (beef extract, yeast extract, sweet whey) to develop the optimal formulation. The final medium contained 10 g/L dextrose, 45 g/L yeast extract, 5 g/L sodium acetate, 2 g/L ammonium citrate, 2 g/L di-potassium hydrogen phosphate, 1 g/L Tween 80, 0.1 g/L magnesium sulfate, and 0.05 g/L manganese sulfate. This formulation achieved significantly higher viable cell counts compared to commercial MRS medium. Scale-up fermentation in 5 L and 50 L fermenters under controlled conditions (37 °C, pH 6.5, 120 rpm) yielded viable cell counts exceeding 9.60 log CFU/mL within 12 h, reducing production costs by 67-86%. P72N in the modified medium demonstrated improved tolerance to environmental stresses. Metabolomic analysis revealed that P72N produced a variety of bioactive metabolites, particularly 1,4-dihydroxy-2-naphthoic acid (1,4-DHNA) and indolelactic acid (ILA) which were detected in higher levels in the modified medium, demonstrating its suitability for industrial production of P72N as a potential feed additive for swine farming.
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.