Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 544

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bacteriocins as a new generation of antimicrobials: toxicity aspects and regulations

Open access
Soltani, Samira, Hammami, Riadh, Cotter, Paul D, Rebuffat, Sylvie, Said, Laila Ben, Gaudreau, Hélène, Bédard, François, Biron, Eric, Drider, Djamel, Fliss, Ismail·2021·FEMS Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

In recent decades, bacteriocins have received substantial attention as antimicrobial compounds. Although bacteriocins have been predominantly exploited as food preservatives, they are now receiving increased attention as potential clinical antimicrobials and as possible immune-modulating agents. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been declared as a global threat to public health. Bacteriocins represent a potential solution to this worldwide threat due to their broad- or narrow-spectrum activity against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Notably, despite their role in food safety as natural alternatives to chemical preservatives, nisin remains the only bacteriocin legally approved by regulatory agencies as a food preservative. Moreover, insufficient data on the safety and toxicity of bacteriocins represent a barrier against the more widespread use of bacteriocins by the food and medical industry. Here, we focus on the most recent trends relating to the application of bacteriocins, their toxicity and impacts.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/femsre/fuaa039

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 544

Metadata

Authors
Soltani, S., Hammami, R., Cotter, P. D., Rebuffat, S., Said, L. B., Gaudreau, H., Bédard, F., Biron, E., Drider, D., & Fliss, I.
Venue
FEMS Microbiology Reviews
Published
2020-09-02
Volume
45
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0168-6445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1574-6976
OpenAlex
W3081875007
Cited by
544
References
8
FWCI
38.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.