The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Toxigenic Strains of Bacillus licheniformis Related to Food Poisoning
Open accessAbstract
Toxin-producing isolates of Bacillus licheniformis were obtained from foods involved in food poisoning incidents, from raw milk, and from industrially produced baby food. The toxin detection method, based on the inhibition of boar spermatozoan motility, has been shown previously to be a sensitive assay for the emetic toxin of Bacillus cereus , cereulide. Cell extracts of the toxigenic B. licheniformis isolates inhibited sperm motility, damaged cell membrane integrity, depleted cellular ATP, and swelled the acrosome, but no mitochondrial damage was observed. The responsible agent from the B. licheniformis isolates was partially purified. It showed physicochemical properties similar to those of cereulide, despite having very different biological activity. The toxic agent was nonproteinaceous; soluble in 50 and 100% methanol; and insensitive to heat, protease, and acid or alkali and of a molecular mass smaller than 10,000 g mol −1 . The toxic B. licheniformis isolates inhibited growth of Corynebacterium renale DSM 20688 T , but not all inhibitory isolates were sperm toxic. The food poisoning-related isolates were beta-hemolytic, grew anaerobically and at 55°C but not at 10°C, and were nondistinguishable from the type strain of B. licheniformis , DSM 13 T , by a broad spectrum of biochemical tests. Ribotyping revealed more diversity; the toxin producers were divided among four ribotypes when cut with Pvu II and among six when cut with Eco RI, but many of the ribotypes also contained nontoxigenic isolates. When ribotyped with Pvu II, most toxin-producing isolates shared bands at 2.8 ± 0.2, 4.9 ± 0.3, and 11.7 ± 0.5 or 13.1 ± 0.8 kb.
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
(EFSA), E. F. S. A. (2007) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.587 · Cited by 479
Bacillus probiotics: an alternative to antibiotics for livestock production
Mingmongkolchai, S., & Panbangred, W. (2018) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/jam.13690 · Cited by 341
Bacillus and relatives in foodborne illness: Bacillus in foodborne illness
Logan, N. A. (2012) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05204.x · Cited by 334
The Prevalence and Control of Bacillus and Related Spore-Forming Bacteria in the Dairy Industry
Gopal, N., Hill, C., Ross, P. R., Beresford, T. P., Fenelon, M. A., & Cotter, P. D. (2015) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.01418 · Cited by 316
Response of spores to high-pressure processing
Black, E. P., Setlow, P., Hocking, A. D., Stewart, C. M., Kelly, A. L., & Hoover, D. G. (2007) · Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · doi:10.1111/j.1541-4337.2007.00021.x · Cited by 260
Metadata
- Authors
- Salkinoja-Salonen, M. S., Vuorio, R., Andersson, M. A., Kämpfer, P., Andersson, M. C., Honkanen-Buzalski, T., & Scoging, A. C.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 4637-4645
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2138505744
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Toxigenic Strains of Bacillus licheniformis Related to Food Poisoning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.65.10.4637-4645.1999
- The paper
- Salkinoja-Salonen, M. S., Vuorio, R., Andersson, M. A., Kämpfer, P., Andersson, M. C., Honkanen-Buzalski, T., & Scoging, A. C. (1999). Toxigenic Strains of Bacillus licheniformis Related to Food Poisoning. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.10.4637-4645.1999
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.