ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Probiotic potential and safety assessment of bacteriocinogenic
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Phenotypic and Whole-Genome Analysis ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Genome Sequences of ThreeMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Whole-Genome Sequence Analysis and Probiotic Characterization of 5-Methoxytryptophan-Producing StrainMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Probiotic potential ofVeterinary world · 2026Article
- Probiogenomics as a Computational Biotechnology Framework: Safety-Gated Genome Analytics for Candidate Probiotic Prioritization and Validation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Bacterial community in homemade kimchi and probiotic characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Gut microbiota and colorectal cancer: mechanistic insights, diagnostic advances, and microbiome-based therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Over the past few years, the genus Methods: The probiotic properties of Results and discussion: Genomic analyses revealed virulence factors associated with adhesion, biofilm formation, and anti-phagocytosis. Various enzymes and antimicrobial resistance genes that confer resistance to aminoglycosides, lincosamides, macrolides, streptogramins A and B, and tetracyclines were also identified. Although generally regarded as detrimental, virulence factors are crucial to colonization, niche establishment, and subsequent manifestation of the beneficial effects of the strain, as evident in other probiotic lactic acid bacteria. Notably, CAUM157 was sensitive to clinically important antibiotics like ampicillin (MIC, 4.0 µg/mL) and vancomycin (MIC, 1.0 µg/mL), congruent with its ST21 MLST typing. CAUM157 survived in acidic conditions (pH 3.0 and pH 2.0) with 100.72 ± 0.20% and 97.28 ± 2.19% survival rates, respectively, and showed high survival rates when exposed to 0.3% (104.16 ± 3.42%) and 0.5% (90.65 ± 1.22%) bile extract, attributed to the enzymatic activity of bile salt hydrolase. CAUM157 also exhibited robust auto-aggregation and co-aggregation when interacting with Conclusion:
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.