Cited by 219Probiotics and Fermented FoodsBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingReproductive tract infections research

Lactobacillus bacteremia, species identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility of 85 blood isolates

Salminen, M. K., Rautelin, H., Tynkkynen, S., Poussa, T., Saxelin, M., Valtonen, V., Jarvinen, A.·2006·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data regarding antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical Lactobacillus isolates are scarce, and appropriate interpretation criteria for susceptibility tests are not available. METHODS: We examined 85 cases of Lactobacillus bacteremia, of which 47 cases have been included in our previous studies. Overall, 14 antimicrobial agents were evaluated by the E-test method, and these results were compared with disk diffusion test findings. The clinical outcomes of the patients and their antimicrobial treatments were registered. RESULTS: The antimicrobial susceptibility of Lactobacillus strains was species dependent. The considerable number of Lactobacillus rhamnosus (n=46), Lactobacillus fermentum (n=12), and Lactobacillus casei (n=12) strains available for testing made it possible to compare the susceptibilities within 1 species, as well. Of the 46 L. rhamnosus isolates, 22 were identified as L. rhamnosus GG type by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. All Lactobacillus isolates demonstrated low minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of imipenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, erythromycin, and clindamycin. MICs of vancomycin were high (>256 microg/mL) for all other species except Lactobacillus gasseri and Lactobacillus jensenii. Disk diffusion and E-test results were concordant. The MICs of cephalosporins varied; cefuroxime demonstrated a higher level of activity than did ceftriaxone. Benzylpenicillin and ampicillin MICs had variable ranges between different species. Combination therapy was given to 83% of the patients, but, in 54% of them, therapy included only 1 microbiologically active agent, according to results of the susceptibility tests. Mortality at 1 week was 12% among patients who presumably were receiving adequate treatment and 27% among patients who were receiving inadequate treatment (P=.131, by E-test). CONCLUSION: Most clinical Lactobacillus blood isolates demonstrated low MICs of imipenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, erythromycin, and clindamycin, but they had variable susceptibility to penicillin and cephalosporins.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/500214

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The most common species isolated from LB blood samples is Lcb. rhamnosus GG (ATCC53103).

    “The most common species isolated from LB blood samples is Lcb. rhamnosus GG (ATCC53103) [6,7,15,22,23,24].”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results report that L. rhamnosus was the most numerous species (46 isolates), including 22 classified as L. rhamnosus GG type. The Identification section defines “GG type” by an indistinguishable PFGE pattern; the Isolates and patients section identifies ATCC 53103 as a separate reference strain used in testing. The paper therefore does not establish that the most common blood isolate was the exact ATCC 53103 strain. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Other Lactobacillus species less frequently reported in LB include Lcb. paracasei, L. acidophilus, L. jensenii, Lpb. plantarum, and Lsb. fermentum.

    “Other Lactobacillus species have been less frequently reported: Lcb. paracasei [7], Lactobacillus (L.) acidophilus [7,15], L. jensenii [7,23,26], Lactiplantibacillus (Lpb.) plantarum [7,27], and Limosilactobacillus (Lsb.) fermentum [7,23].”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results and isolate-count tables (pages not supplied) document blood isolates of L. fermentum, L. jensenii, and L. plantarum, with fewer isolates than L. rhamnosus. Our copy does not document L. paracasei or L. acidophilus among the blood isolates; paracasei appears only in a reference about peritonitis, not bacteremia. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Second-generation cephalosporin and cefuroxime showed greater activity against lactobacilli compared with third-generation cephalosporin and ceftriaxone.

    “In general, second-generation cephalosporin and cefuroxime showed greater activity against lactobacilli, compared with third-generation cephalosporin and ceftriaxone, which is in accordance with earlier observations.”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

  • All isolates demonstrated low minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against imipenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, erythromycin, and clindamycin.

    “All isolates demonstrated low minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against imipenem, piperacillin–tazobactam, erythromycin, and clindamycin.”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wallet F, Dessein R, Armand S, Courcol RJ. Molecular diagnosis of endocarditis due to Lactobacillus casei subsp. rhamnosus. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35:e117-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salminen, M. K., Rautelin, H., Tynkkynen, S., Poussa, T., Saxelin, M., Valtonen, V., & Jarvinen, A.
Affiliations
  • Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Valio (Finland) (FI)
Corresponding author
Salminen, M. K.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2006-03-01
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
e35-e44
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2159982881
Cited by
218
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
25.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Valio
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
antimicrobial susceptibility, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus gasseri, Lactobacillus jensenii, minimum inhibitory concentration, imipenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, erythromycin, clindamycin, cephalosporins, penicillin, vancomycin, combination antibiotic therapy, mortality, species identification
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Humans, Lactobacillus, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Species Specificity, Bacteremia, Drug Resistance, Bacterial

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