Cited by 103Probiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and healthInfant Nutrition and Health

Auto-aggregation and Co-aggregation ability in bifidobacteria and clostridia

Vlková, E., Rada, V., Šmehilová, M., Killer, J.·2008·Folia Microbiologica

Abstract

A total of 142 human and 88 calf bifidobacteria were isolated and identified; approximately 12 % of all isolated strains exhibited auto-aggregation (Agg) phenotype (Agg+). Properties considered to be predicting for their adhesion to intestine, i.e. auto-aggregation, and hydrophobicity were determined by xylene extraction in 18 human and 8 calf origin bifidobacteria. Co-aggregation of 8 human bifidobacteria with 8 clostridia was also evaluated. Agg varied between 16.3 and 96.4 %, hydrophobicity values ranged from 0 to 82.8 %. The strongest Agg and hydrophobicity were observed in B. bifidum and B. merycicum isolates. However, there were no statistically significant correlations between these two properties. Variability in the percentage of Agg and hydrophobicity was observed after cultivation of bifidobacteria on different carbon sources. All bifidobacteria showed co-aggregation ability with clostridia tested but there were remarkable differences depending on specific combinations of strains. The bifidobacterial strains with the highest ability to co-aggregate with clostridia were B. bifidum I4 and B. longum I10 isolated from infants; these strains gave also high values of Agg. Agg properties together with co-aggregation ability with potential pathogen can be used for preliminary selection of probiotic bacteria.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12223-008-0040-z

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Auto-aggregation ability correlates positively with adherence to human epithelial cell lines and the ability to co-aggregate with Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and pathogenic Escherichia coli.

    “Auto-aggregation ability correlates positively with adherence to human epithelial cell lines and the ability to co-aggregate with Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and pathogenic Escherichia coli [8, 12–16].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vlková, E., Rada, V., Šmehilová, M., & Killer, J.
Affiliations
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZ)
Corresponding author
Vlková, E.
Venue
Folia Microbiologica
Published
2008-05
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
263-269
ISSN
  • 0015-5632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1874-9356
OpenAlex
W2109603905
Cited by
103
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Folia Microbiologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
Keywords
Bifidobacterium, Clostridia, self-aggregation, co-aggregation, bacterial hydrophobicity, intestinal adhesions, probiotic strain selection, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum, carbon source effects
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacterial Adhesion, Bifidobacterium, Carbon, Cattle, Clostridium, Culture Media, Feces, Humans, Intestines, Surface Properties, Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review