The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis as a probiotic to Indian major carp Labeo rohita (Ham.)
Open accessAbstract
Bacillus subtilis, a Gram-positive, aerobic, endospore-forming bacterium, was evaluated for its probiotic potential in Indian major carp, Labeo rohita. Labeo rohita (15±2 g) were fed a feed containing B. subtilis in three concentrations for 2 weeks, e.g., 0.5 (T2), 1.0 (T3) and 1.5 (T4) × 107 CFU g−1 feed. The control group (T1) was fed feed without B. subtilis for the same period. Haematological and serum parameters were monitored at weekly intervals. The response variables were total erythrocyte count, total leucocyte count (TLC), haemoglobin, total protein, albumin, globulin, albumin–globulin ratio, alkaline phosphatase activity, alanine aminotransferase activity and aspartate aminotransferase activity. Fish were challenged intraperitoneally with a virulent strain of Aeromonas hydrophila after 2 weeks of feeding to the treatment groups and positive control group, while the negative control group was challenged with phosphate-buffered saline only. Clinical signs and symptoms, and mortality/survival percentage were noted in each group. The haematological and serum parameters were monitored each week and during post challenge on the third and tenth day. The B. subtilis-treated fish (T4, 1.5 × 107 CFU g−1 feed) showed maximum per cent survival (87.50%), weight gain (35.5%), TLCs (3.23 × 104 cells mm−3), haemoglobin content (7.4 g%), total protein (2.37 gdL−1) and globulin content (1.28 g dL−1) during the pre-challenge. Enzymes showed higher activities during post challenge (P<0.05). The result suggests that B. subtilis can be used effectively as a commercial product for use in aquaculture.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Beneficial roles of feed additives as immunostimulants in aquaculture: a review
Dawood, M. A. O., Koshio, S., & Esteban, M. Á. (2018) · Reviews in Aquaculture · doi:10.1111/raq.12209 · Cited by 921
Hoseinifar, S. H., Sun, Y.-Z., Wang, A., & Zhou, Z. (2018) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.02429 · Cited by 601
Recent advances in the role of probiotics and prebiotics in carp aquaculture: A review
Dawood, M. A. O., & Koshio, S. (2016) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.12.033 · Cited by 527
The advancement of probiotics research and its application in fish farming industries
Banerjee, G., & Ray, A. K. (2017) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.01.016 · Cited by 334
Rohani, M. F., Islam, S. M., Hossain, M. K., Ferdous, Z., Siddik, M. A., Nuruzzaman, M., Padeniya, U., Brown, C., & Shahjahan, M. (2022) · Fish & Shellfish Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.fsi.2021.12.037 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Kumar, R., Mukherjee, S. C., Prasad, K. P., & Pal, A. K.
- Venue
- Aquaculture Research
- Publisher
- Hindawi Limited
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1215-1221
- ISSN
- 1355-557X (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2109
- OpenAlex
- W1989684408
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis as a probiotic to Indian major carp Labeo rohita (Ham.). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01551.x
- The paper
- Kumar, R., Mukherjee, S. C., Prasad, K. P., & Pal, A. K. (2006). Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis as a probiotic to Indian major carp Labeo rohita (Ham.). Aquaculture Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01551.x
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.