Cited by 116Probiotics and Fermented FoodsListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyInfant Nutrition and Health

Inactivation of Adhesion and Invasion of Food-Borne Listeria monocytogenes by Bacteriocin-Producing Bifidobacterium Strains of Human Origin

Open access
Moroni, Olivier, Kheadr, Ehab, Boutin, Yvan, Lacroix, Christophe, Fliss, Ismaïl·2006·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Three bacteriocin-producing bifidobacterial isolates from newborns were identified as Bifidobacterium thermacidophilum (two strains) and B. thermophilum (one strain). This study was undertaken to evaluate the ability of these strains to compete with food-borne Listeria monocytogenes for adhesion and invasion sites on Caco-2 and HT-29 cells. The bifidobacteria adhered at levels ranging from 4% to 10% of the CFU added, but none of the bifidobacteria were able to invade cells. The abilities of Listeria to adhere to and to invade cells varied widely depending on the strain tested. Three groups of Listeria were identified based on invasiveness: weakly invasive, moderately invasive, and highly invasive strains. One strain from each group was tested in competition with bifidobacteria. B. thermacidophilum RBL70 was the most effective in blocking invasion of Listeria , and the decreases in invasion ranged from 38% to 90%. For all three bifidobacterial strains, contact between the cell monolayer and the bifidobacteria for 1 h before exposure to Listeria increased the degree of inhibition. Finally, visualization of competition for adhesion sites on cells by fluorescent in situ hybridization suggested that the two bacteria tended to adhere in close proximity.

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 · 10.1128/aem.00928-06

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Numerous in vitro studies have demonstrated that bifidobacteria can inhibit pathogens through the production of organic acids, antibacterial peptides, quorum-sensing inhibitors, or immune stimulation among other mechanisms.

    “Numerous in vitro studies have demonstrated that bifidobacteria can inhibit pathogens through the production of organic acids (38), antibacterial peptides (39), quorum-sensing inhibitors (40, 41), or immune stimulation (42) among other mechanisms, providing molecular clues of their capacity to prevent certain infections.”

    From Bifidobacteria and Their Health-Promoting Effects (2017) · cites this paper as [39]

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: 3

  1. [8]Daniels, J. J. D., I. B. Autrenrieth, and W. Goebel. 2000. Interaction of Listeria monocytogenes with the intestinal epithelium. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 190:323-328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [11]Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limit on phylogenies: an approach using bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [29]Olier, M., F. Pierre, J.-P. Lemaître, C. Divies, A. Rousset, and J. Guzzo. 2002. Assessment of the pathogenic potential of two Listeria monocytogenes human faecal carriage isolates. Microbiology 148:1855-1862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moroni, O., Kheadr, E., Boutin, Y., Lacroix, C., & Fliss, I.
Affiliations
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Cégep de Lévis (CA)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • STELA Dairy Research Center, Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods Institute (INAF), Pavillon Paul Comtois, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada G1K 7P4
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
2006-11
Volume
72
Issue
11
Pages
6894-6901
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2051024501
Cited by
116
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied and Environmental Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
Keywords
Listeria monocytogenes, Bifidobacterium thermophilum, competitive exclusion, bacterial adhesion, cell invasion, Caco-2 cells, HT-29 cells, foodborne pathogens, neonates, fluorescence in situ hybridization
MeSH terms
Animals, Antibiosis, Bacterial Adhesion, Bacteriocins, Bifidobacterium, Dairy Products, Eggs, Feces, Humans, Infant, Listeria, Listeria monocytogenes, Milk, Caco-2 Cells, HT29 Cells

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