ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hindlimb immobilization rapidly induces skeletal muscle atrophy by reducing mechanical loading and accelerating proteolytic activity. This atrophy is further exacerbated by inflammatory signaling, which amplifies FOXO3a-driven expression of Atrogin-1 and MuRF1 and suppresses myogenic capacity. Emerging evidence suggests that specific probiotic strains may counteract these catabolic and inflammatory responses, prompting the evaluation of Methods: In the present study, five probiotic strains were screened in C2C12 myotubes and RAW264.7 macrophages to assess anti-proteolytic and anti-inflammatory activities. Whole-genome sequencing was conducted to determine genetic safety and functional gene profiles. In vivo efficacy was evaluated using a hindlimb immobilization mouse model administered with LGA2 (1 × 10 Results: LGA2 showed the strongest suppression of dexamethasone-induced muscle protein degradation and lipopolysaccharides-induced inflammatory responses among the screened strains. Genomic analysis identified genes related to antioxidant defense, immune modulation, and muscle protection. In immobilized mice, LGA2 significantly improved grip strength, preserved muscle mass, and restored muscle fiber cross-sectional area. Mechanistically, LGA2 maintained FOXO3a phosphorylation, reduced Atrogin-1 and MuRF1 expression, and recovered myogenin and MyHC isoforms (IIa, IIx, IIb). Additionally, LGA2 lowered TNF-α, IL-6, iNOS, and COX-2 levels while restoring IL-10 in muscle and serum. Discussion: These findings demonstrate that LGA2 mitigates disuse-induced muscle atrophy through coordinated anti-inflammatory, anti-proteolytic, and pro-myogenic mechanisms. Its genomic safety and multifunctional efficacy support LGA2 as a promising probiotic intervention for muscle health.
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.