Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41454939›Full record

ReviewAntonie van Leeuwenhoek2025

Challenges, adaptations, and biotechnological potential of oligophilic bacteria.

Biswajit Khan, Pradipta Saha

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Biswajit KhanDepartment of Microbiology, The University of Burdwan, Golapbag, Burdwan, WB, 713104, India.
Pradipta SahaDepartment of Microbiology, The University of Burdwan, Golapbag, Burdwan, WB, 713104, India. psaha@microbio.buruniv.ac.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2113-3198

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of the prokaryotic microorganisms, especially bacteria cannot be cultivated under laboratory conditions. Irrespective of environmental samples, direct count of prokaryotes always exceeds viable count, a condition popularly coined as "Great Plate count anomaly". Our inability to culture them in isolation under laboratory conditions is due to many reasons. One possible reason could be the existence of a special group of extremophilic bacteria, such as, oligophilic bacteria, a group, that loves to grow in nutrient-deficient conditions. They are slow growing, showing unique physiological adaptations that help them to thrive in nutrient-deficient conditions. Most of them are small in size, with high-affinity nutrient uptake systems, and specialized metabolic pathways that differentiate them from other groups of bacteria. However, these different adaptations can pose obstacles to their cultivation in laboratory conditions where conventional culture media are used. Different methods are used for their isolation including dilution-to-extinction plating methods. The physiological and molecular mechanisms that support oligophilic adaptation at the genomic and regulatory levels have been documented with respect to model bacteria, such as Candidatus Pelagibacter ubique and Sphingopyxis alaskensis. Furthermore, ecological significance and biotechnological potential of this group have been highlighted. They can be a resource for novel gene pools, antimicrobials and metabolic pathways. The "Great Plate Count Anomaly" is still a harsh reality and the study of oligophilic bacteria might reduce the gap between the unknown majority and known minority.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalBacteriaBacterial Physiological PhenomenaBiotechnologyCopiophilic bacteriaGreat plate count anomalyMetabolic imbalanceOligophilic bacteriaTSBA/100TSBA (Tryptic soy broth agar)

Identifiers

PMID41454939

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.