ArticleScientific reports2025
Impact of bacterial inactivation methods on Caenorhabditis elegans feeding and healthspan.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peptone-free nematode growth medium improves culture stability and physiological resilience in Caenorhabditis elegans.Biogerontology · 2026Article
- A Lecithin-Based Delivery Form of Quercetin Promotes Stress Resistance and Longevity inPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pathogenicity and intestinal barrier disruptive ability ofFEMS microbes · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate bacterial inactivation methods are essential for nutritional and microbiota studies in Caenorhabditis elegans, to determine whether the observed effects arise from nutrients provided by ingested bacteria or from active symbiotic interactions. However, some inactivation methods alter bacterial palatability, complicating conclusions about their direct impact. We aimed to identify an effective method for inactivating the bacterial strain Escherichia coli OP50, the standard food source for most C. elegans experiments, that preserves normal behavior and physiology in C. elegans. We compared heat inactivation (65 °C for 35 min) with 0.5% paraformaldehyde (PFA) inactivation. Worms fed PFA-inactivated bacteria showed no food aversion, and maintained wild-type pharyngeal pumping levels, fertility rates, and lipid accumulation, closely resembling the behavior and physiology of worms fed alive E. coli OP50. In contrast, heat‑inactivated bacteria elicited strong food avoidance, reduced pumping activity, activation of the mitochondrial unfolded protein response (UPR
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.