ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Comparative in silico analyses between Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Bifidobacterium longum concerning probiotic properties, anti-lipidemic, and anti-diabetic in vitro activities.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gut microbiota plays a crucial role in gastrointestinal health, immune function, and overall well-being. Dysbiosis has been linked to various conditions such as colon cancer, atopic diseases, mental disorders, autoimmune disorders, obesity, and diabetes. This in vitro study aims to assess the safety and functional potential of two probiotic strains, Lactiplantibacillus (L) plantarum and Bifidobacterium (B) longum, focusing on their anti-lipidemic, anti-diabetic, antioxidant, and probiotic properties. The strains were tested for stress tolerance, including acidic, alkaline, osmotic, oxidative, thermal, detergent, bile salt, and pancreatic enzyme conditions. Both strains exhibited strong resilience, often surpassing the control strain. Their antioxidant activity, measured by radical scavenging ability, was comparable to ascorbic acid, with values of 77% for L. plantarum and 92% for B. longum. Cholesterol-lowering capacity reached 50% and 49% after 3 days, increasing to 59% and 78% after 7 days, respectively. Hydrophobicity, an indicator of adhesion potential, was approximately 78% for L. plantarum and 80% for B. longum. Additionally, both strains showed low α-amylase activity (91.65 and 92.33 U/ml), suggesting a potential role in slowing carbohydrate digestion and managing blood glucose levels. Overall, the strains demonstrated favorable safety profiles and promising functional attributes for alleviating hyperlipidemia and diabetes. PCA and heatmap analyses further highlighted L. plantarum as the most promising candidate.
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.