ArticlePloS one2025
Integrative genomic characterization of five Pediococcus acidilactici strains reveals differing probiotic safety profiles.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening and characterization of Limosilactobacillus reuteri L16 and its probiotic properties in Hy-Line Brown chicks.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Integrated Genomics and Phenotypic Analysis ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing use of probiotics in livestock necessitates rigorous safety assessments to mitigate risks such as their inadvertent contribution to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and horizontal gene transfer (HGT). This study employs whole-genome sequencing using both long-read (GridION, Oxford Nanopore Technologies) and short-read (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) platforms to assess the genomic and plasmidome profiles of five Thai strains of Pediococcus acidilactici, that previously have been evaluated for probiotic potential in livestock. Our comprehensive analysis identified genes encoding AMR, virulence factors, and probiotic-related genes. Notably, strains AF2519 and AF2019 harbored plasmid-borne tet(M) and erm(B) genes, with tet(M) embedded in a novel composite genetic arrangement flanked by mobile elements, suggesting historical recombination and altered mobility potential. Strains IAF6519, IAF5919, and P72N, free from plasmid-borne AMR genes, emerged as safer candidates, lacking virulence genes. Phenotypic tests revealed discrepancies with genomic data; for instance, AF2019 was resistant to clindamycin without detectable genes, and showed susceptibility to tetracycline despite the presence of tet(M). The absence of complete transfer machinery in AF2519 and AF2019 suggests a reduced HGT risk. These findings underscore the importance of integrating genomic and phenotypic approaches in probiotic safety evaluations. The presence of plasmid-borne AMR genes in certain strains advises caution in their use, impacting probiotic selection and regulatory compliance in agriculture. This research informs policies and best practices for safe probiotic deployment, ensuring both efficacy and safety.
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.