ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
In vitro assessment of the probiotic potential and safety of lactic acid bacteria for aquatic animal health.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2026. 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
Abstract
This study evaluated the in vitro probiotic-related properties and preliminary safety profiles of five lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains for potential use in aquaculture: Limosilactobacillus reuteri ATCC 55730, Lentilactobacillus kefiri K107, Latilactobacillus sakei SN34, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum FI8595, and Streptococcus thermophilus BioSt64. Probiotic-related traits included antimicrobial activity against Lactococcus garvieae and Yersinia ruckeri, aggregation-related properties, and tolerance to fish bile and acidic conditions. Safety assessment included hemolytic and enzymatic activities and antibiotic susceptibility. Lmb. reuteri showed the strongest inhibition of L. garvieae (18.25 ± 1.06 mm), followed by S. thermophilus (9.85 ± 0.21 mm), whereas Ltb. sakei inhibited Y. ruckeri (9.00 ± 0.00 mm). All strains coaggregated with both pathogens and remained viable under the tested acidic and bile conditions. Lmb. reuteri and Lpb. plantarum showed high autoaggregation and cell surface hydrophobicity, which may indicate potential for intestinal adhesion, although this should be confirmed through direct adhesion assays. S. thermophilus showed the most favorable preliminary profile, combining antimicrobial activity, absence of detectable hemolysis, and susceptibility to most antibiotics under the conditions tested. Lmb. reuteri also showed promising probiotic-related properties, but its previously reported antimicrobial resistance determinants represent an important safety concern, while the β-hemolytic activity of Ltb. sakei precludes its selection without further assessment. Further controlled in vivo evaluation is required before any of these strains can be considered for use as aquaculture probiotics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42873439What 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.