CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79Probiotics and Fermented FoodsOral microbiology and periodontitis researchReproductive tract infections research

An assessment of adhesion, aggregation and surface charges of Lactobacillus strains derived from the human oral cavity

Piwat, S., Sophatha, B., Teanpaisan, R.·2015·Letters in Applied Microbiology
DOI 10.1111/lam.12434
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

UNLABELLED: There is limited information concerning the adhesion and aggregation of human oral lactobacilli. In this study, the adhesion of 10 Lactobacillus species was investigated using H357 oral keratinocyte cells as an in vitro model for oral mucosa. Coaggregation with the representative oral pathogen, Streptococcus mutans ATCC 25175, and the physicochemical cell properties was also evaluated. The results demonstrated significant variations in adhesion (42-96%) and aggregation (autoaggregation, 14-95%; coaggregation, 19-65%). All strains showed a high affinity for chloroform, and most strains had a moderate-to-high hydrophobicity. All strains, except Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus gasseri, showed a moderate affinity for ethyl acetate. There was a strong association of autoaggregation with coaggregation (rs = 0·883, P < 0·001). The highest mean for autoaggregation (74%) and coaggregation (47%) belonged to the Lact. gasseri strains. Correlations between the adhesion and surface characteristics and aggregation were observed among the Lactobacillus fermentum and Lactobacillus paracasei strains; however, there was a variation in the strains properties within and between species. This study indicated that the Lact. gasseri, Lact. fermentum, and Lact. paracasei strains might be potential probiotics for the human oral cavity given their desirable properties. It should also be emphasized that a selective process for probiotic strains is required. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Adhesion to host tissues and bacterial aggregation (auto- and coaggregation) are the highly important criteria for selecting strains with probiotic potential. These abilities are commonly involved with surface-charged characteristics. This is the first study to investigate the oral Lactobacillus species using an oral keratinocyte cell line. Significant results were found for the correlations between the adhesion and surface charge characteristics and for aggregation among certain strains of Lactobacillus gasseri, Lactobacillus fermentum and Lactobacillus paracasei. This observation could be useful when collecting background information for the selection of probiotic strains for use in oral health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lam.12434

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Our previous studies demonstrated that oral probiotic Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei SD1, L. rhamnosus SD4, L. fermentum SD7, and L. rhamnosus SD11, exhibited the ability of coaggregation, adhesion, and anti-adhesion of pathogenic bacteria to human oral keratinocytes.

    “Our previous studies have demonstrated that oral probiotic Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei SD1, L. rhamnosus SD4, L. fermentum SD7, and L. rhamnosus SD11, exhibited the ability of coaggregation, adhesion, and anti-adhesion of pathogenic bacteria to human oral keratinocytes.21,22”

    From Aggregation and adhesion ability of various probiotic strains and Candida species: An in vitro study (2024) · cites this paper as [21]

  • Coaggregation of different Lactobacillaceae strains with E. coli O157:H7 after 5 h incubation ranges between 21% and 32%.

    “Coaggregation of different Lactobacillaceae strains with E. coli O157:H7 after 5 h incubation ranges between 21 % and 32 % [52].”

    From EVALUATION OF ADHESIVE AND AGGREGATION PROPERTIES OF LACTIC ACID BACTERIA ISOLATED FROM DIFFERENT BIOTOPES (2025) · cites this paper as [52]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Piwat, S., Sophatha, B., & Teanpaisan, R.
Affiliations
Prince of Songkla University (TH)
Corresponding author
Teanpaisan, R.
ORCID
Venue
Letters in Applied Microbiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2015-05-19
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
98-105
ISSN
0266-8254 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/lam.12434
OpenAlex
W1974675719
Cited by
78
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Letters in Applied Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Research Council of Thailand (DEN550005)
  • Thailand Research Fund
  • National Science and Technology Development Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
Lactobacillus, oral lactobacilli, bacterial adhesion, self-aggregation, co-aggregation, Streptococcus mutans, surface charge, hydrophobicity, probiotic strain selection, Lactobacillus gasseri, Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus paracasei, oral health
MeSH terms
Bacterial Adhesion, Cell Line, Chloroform, Humans, Lactobacillus, Mouth, Streptococcus mutans, Keratinocytes, Probiotics, 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