The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Specific detection and analysis of a probiotic Bifidobacterium strain in infant feces
Open accessAbstract
For specific detection of the probiotic Bifidobacterium sp. strain LW420 in infant feces and for rapid quality control of this strain in culture, three strain-specific 16S rRNA gene-targeted primers have been developed. These primers allow specific detection of the organism via PCR. Specificity of the primers was determined in DNA samples isolated from single-strain and mixed cultures of bifidobacteria and in heterogenous fecal samples. The feasibility of this method for use in specific detection of probiotic strains was investigated through addition of Bifidobacterium sp. strain LW420 to infant instant milk formula (IMF) and PCR analyses of bacterial DNA isolated from feces of 17 newborn IMF-fed infants. In feces of all nine babies that had been fed with the probiotic IMF, the strain-specific PCR signal could be detected. No signal was found in feces of the eight infants that had been fed with a nonprobiotic IMF, demonstrating the specificity of the PCR method. All 17 infants developed a major fecal Bifidobacterium population already after 3 days, as determined through genus-specific and strain-specific PCR. Phenotypical screening of Bifidobacterium sp. strain LW420 and analysis of homology of the 16S rRNA gene sequence of this strain with that of other bifidobacteria deposited in databases do not allow positive classification of LW420 among the currently known species of Bifidobacterium.
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
Cites
Improved tools for biological sequence comparison.
Pearson, W. R., & Lipman, D. J. (1988) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.85.8.2444 · Cited by 11,227
Cited by
Functional food science and gastrointestinal physiology and function
Salminen, S., Bouley, C., Boutron, M.-C., Cummings, J. H., Franck, A., Gibson, G. R., Isolauri, E., Moreau, M.-C., Roberfroid, M., & Rowland, I. (1998) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1079/bjn19980108 · Cited by 1,398
Prophylaxis of pouchitis onset with probiotic therapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Gionchetti, P., Rizzello, F., Helwig, U., Venturi, A., Lammers, K. M., Brigidi, P., Vitali, B., Poggioli, G., Miglioli, M., & Campieri, M. (2003) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(03)00171-9 · Cited by 1,147
Ou, J., Carbonero, F., Zoetendal, E. G., DeLany, J. P., Wang, M., Newton, K., Gaskins, H. R., & O’Keefe, S. J. (2013) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.056689 · Cited by 646
Candela, M., Perna, F., Carnevali, P., Vitali, B., Ciati, R., Gionchetti, P., Rizzello, F., Campieri, M., & Brigidi, P. (2008) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.04.012 · Cited by 398
Healey, G., Murphy, R., Butts, C., Brough, L., Whelan, K., & Coad, J. (2018) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114517003440 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Kok, R. G., de Waal, A., Schut, F., Welling, G. W., Weenk, G., & Hellingwerf, K. J.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1996-10
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3668-3672
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2157117246
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.27
- 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: Specific detection and analysis of a probiotic Bifidobacterium strain in infant feces. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.62.10.3668-3672.1996
- The paper
- Kok, R. G., de Waal, A., Schut, F., Welling, G. W., Weenk, G., & Hellingwerf, K. J. (1996). Specific detection and analysis of a probiotic Bifidobacterium strain in infant feces. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.62.10.3668-3672.1996
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.