Antifungal effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus plantarum against different oral Candida species isolated from HIV/AIDS patients: an in vitro study
Open accessAbstract
Oropharyngeal Candidiasis (OPC) is an opportunistic fungal infection occurring in immunocompromised patients such as HIV/AIDS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the antifungal properties of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus plantarum on different Candida species isolated from oral cavity of HIV/AIDS patients compared to Fluconazole (FLC). In this study, the antifungal effects of both cells and cell-free supernatants (CFSs) of L. acidophilus and L. plantarum were investigated against different oral Candida species by co-aggregation, agar overlay interference and broth microdilution assays, respectively. Our results showed that the highest co-aggregation ratio of the two tested Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) was observed for C. krusei. Both L. acidophilus and L. plantarum at cell concentrations 1010 to 102 cfu/ml were able to inhibit the growth of most of the oral Candida species, except for C. albicans, and to some C. krusei. In this study, MIC and MFC values for CFS of L. acidophilus ranged from 100 to 200 µl/ml and 100 to 200 µl/ml, respectively, and MIC and MFC values for CFS of L. plantarum were 50 to 200 µl/ml and 50 to 200 µl/ml, respectively. The ranges of MIC and MFC for FLC were 256–1024 µg/ml and 512–2048 µg/ml, respectively. C. albicans and C. parapsilosis displayed the highest and least susceptibility to CFSs of two LAB, respectively. Our findings showed that both cells and CFSs of L. acidophilus and L. plantarum had antifungal effects against oral Candida species.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Previous studies have reported that the coaggregation ability of probiotic Lactobacillus strains with Candida species varied depending on the strain.
“Previous studies have reported that the coaggregation ability of probiotic Lactobacillus strains with Candida species varied depending on the strain, however, most studies have only examined intestinal and vaginal probiotic Lactobacillus strains.7, 8, 9”
From Aggregation and adhesion ability of various probiotic strains and Candida species: An in vitro study (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
Most studies have only examined intestinal and vaginal probiotic Lactobacillus strains, and there have been very few studies relating to oral probiotic strains.
“however, most studies have only examined intestinal and vaginal probiotic Lactobacillus strains.7, 8, 9 There have been very few studies relating to oral probiotic strains.10”
From Aggregation and adhesion ability of various probiotic strains and Candida species: An in vitro study (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
Citation 10 is attached to the claim that very few studies concern oral probiotic strains. The Introduction and Discussion describe this paper’s tests against oral Candida and cite other oral-Candida studies, but they do not assess how many studies examine oral probiotic strains. Searches for that scarcity claim and for a comparison with intestinal or vaginal strains found no supporting passage in our copy; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 70
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [14]Ayatollahi Mousavi SA, Salari S, Rezaei S, et al. Identification of Candida species isolated from oral colonization in Iranian HIV-positive patients, by PCR-RFLP method. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2012; 5: 336– 340.
- Authors
- Salari, S., & Ghasemi Nejad Almani, P.
- Affiliations
- Kerman University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Students Research Committee, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
- Corresponding author
- Salari, Samira
- Venue
- Journal of Oral Microbiology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-01-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1769386
- ISSN
- 2000-2297 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7448839
- OpenAlex
- W3030173256
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 3.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Oral Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Research Information System of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences (Ardabil University of Medical Sciences) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deputy of Research and Technology of Kerman University of Medical Sciences (950068)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
- Keywords
- Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, antifungal activity, oral candidiasis, Candida species, HIV/AIDS, Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis, Candida krusei, lactic acid bacteria, cell-free supernatant, minimum inhibitory concentration, fluconazole comparison, opportunistic fungal infection
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
