ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Whole genome analysis and in vivo safety assessment of probiotic candidate Lactobacillus acidophilus L177.
Article in BMC microbiology, 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.
- Whole-genome sequencing reveals hidden antimicrobial resistance genes in phenotypically susceptible probiotic candidate lactic acid bacteria.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring lactic acid bacteria from fresh fruits, vegetables, and edible flowers: from biodiversity valorisation to food applications.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Review
- Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Vitamin BCommunications biology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Probiotics, particularly strains of lactic acid bacteria (LAB), are recognized for their beneficial effects on gut health. Lactobacillus acidophilus L177, a promising probiotic strain isolated from canine feces, was evaluated for safety and probiotic properties through whole genome sequencing and a 28-day subacute oral toxicity study in C57BL/6 mice. The toxicity study involved daily administration of L177 at doses of 108, 109, and 1010 CFU/mL, with continuous monitoring of general health, behavioral changes, and physiological parameters. Body weight, food and water intake, hematological and biochemical indices, organ weights, and histopathology were assessed. No significant adverse effects were observed, and proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6, IL-1β) remained undetectable in serum, indicating an absence of inflammatory response. Statistical analysis confirmed no significant differences in key health markers between treated and control groups (p > 0.05). Whole genome sequencing revealed a single chromosome of approximately 1,972,211 base pairs (GC content: 35.02%) with 1 CRISPR sequence and 1,955 genes. Functional annotation highlighted genes associated with metabolism, information processing, and cellular functions. Antibiotic Resistance Gene analysis identified one AMR gene (lnu(C)), but phenotypic tests confirmed L177 is sensitive to clindamycin and lincomycin. Sixty-seven virulence-associated genes were detected, mainly related to structure, metabolism, and regulation. These findings support the safety and probiotic potential of L. acidophilus L177 for potential applications in both animal and human health.
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.