Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40932664›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2026

In Vivo and In Vitro Evaluation of Probiotic and Postbiotic Strategies Against Foulbrood in Honeybees.

Clémentine Mathien, Laura Fourel, Juliette Gilbert, Christophe Portelli, Khaled Fadhlaoui, Marie Diogon, Frédéric Delbac, Catherine Texier, Eric Peyretaillade, Pascale Goupil and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 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

13 authors.

Clémentine MathienUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Laura FourelUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Juliette GilbertUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Christophe PortelliUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Khaled FadhlaouiUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Marie DiogonUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Frédéric DelbacUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Catherine TexierUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Eric PeyretailladeUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Pascale GoupilUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, PIAF, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Jean Yves BerthonGreentech, Biopôle Clermont-Limagne, 63360, Saint-Beauzire, France.
Assia Dreux-ZighaGreencell, Biopôle Clermont-Limagne, 63360, Saint-Beauzire, France. assiadreux@greencell.tech.
Hicham El AlaouiUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, 1 Impasse Amélie Murat - TSA 60026 - CS 60026 - 63178 Aubière Cedex, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Hicham.EL_ALAOUI@uca.fr.

Funding

Association Nationale de la Recherche et la Technologie grant number Cifre n° 2021/1627Greentech company grant number Cifre n° 2021/1627
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

American and European foulbroods, which are among the most severe honeybee diseases, are caused by Paenibacillus larvae and Melissococcus plutonius, respectively. Both bacteria pose a significant threat to larval health and colony survival. Due to the lack of safe and effective treatments, there is growing interest in using beneficial bacterial supplements as a promising alternative to antibiotics. This study evaluated both the probiotic and postbiotic potential of selected bacterial strains against foulbrood pathogens with the aim of gaining a better understanding of their modes of action. An initial screening of 25 strains for anti-foulbrood activity using agar diffusion techniques was conducted to select the most active candidates for further investigation. We investigated the role of their cell-free supernatants (CFS) and initiated the characterisation of their activity and mechanisms of action. The minimal inhibitory dose of the CFS, the nature of the active compounds, and their antibacterial effect were determined. Finally, the probiotic and postbiotic properties were assessed using P. larvae-infected larvae reared under laboratory conditions. Five lactic acid bacteria exhibited antagonistic activity against one or both pathogens, with two of them showing particularly strong inhibitory effects through their CFS. The CFS of Lactobacillus crispatus and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum achieved complete inhibition of P. larvae at a concentration of 12.5% (v/v). Subsequent characterisation suggested that their activity was primarily bacteriostatic, likely mediated by lactic acid. In vivo assays demonstrated a significant 42.5% increase in larval survival when supplemented with live L. plantarum, whereas CFS treatments failed to rescue infected larvae. These results emphasise the potential of probiotic- and postbiotic-based strategies as a sustainable approach to managing foulbrood in beekeeping.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBeesEnterococcaceaePaenibacillus larvaeProbioticsAnimalsCell-Free SystemLarvaAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntagonistic activityApis melliferaLactic acid bacteriaMelissococcus plutoniusPaenibacillus larvae

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.