Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 878

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Screening of Probiotic Activities of Forty-Seven Strains of Lactobacillus spp. by In Vitro Techniques and Evaluation of the Colonization Ability of Five Selected Strains in Humans

Open access
Jacobsen, C. N., Rosenfeldt Nielsen, V., Hayford, A. E., Møller, P. L., Michaelsen, K. F., Pærregaard, A., Sandström, B., Tvede, M., Jakobsen, M.·1999·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

The probiotic potential of 47 selected strains of Lactobacillus spp. was investigated. The strains were examined for resistance to pH 2.5 and 0.3% oxgall, adhesion to Caco-2 cells, and antimicrobial activities against enteric pathogenic bacteria in model systems. From the results obtained in vitro, five strains, Lactobacillus rhamnosus 19070-2, L. reuteri DSM 12246, L. rhamnosus LGG, L. delbrueckii subsp. lactis CHCC 2329, and L. casei subsp. alactus CHCC 3137, were selected for in vivo studies. The daily consumption by 12 healthy volunteers of two doses of 10 10 freeze-dried bacteria of the selected strains for 18 days was followed by a washout period of 17 days. Fecal samples were taken at days 0 and 18 and during the washout period at days 5 and 11. Lactobacillus isolates were initially identified by API 50CHL and internal transcribed spacer PCR, and their identities were confirmed by restriction enzyme analysis in combination with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Among the tested strains, L. rhamnosus 19070-2, L. reuteri DSM 12246, and L. rhamnosus LGG were identified most frequently in fecal samples; they were found in 10, 8, and 7 of the 12 samples tested during the intervention period, respectively, whereas reisolations were less frequent in the washout period. The bacteria were reisolated in concentrations from 10 5 to 10 8 cells/g of feces. Survival and reisolation of the bacteria in vivo appeared to be linked to pH tolerance, adhesion, and antimicrobial properties in vitro.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.65.11.4949-4956.1999

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 878

Metadata

Authors
Jacobsen, C. N., Rosenfeldt Nielsen, V., Hayford, A. E., Møller, P. L., Michaelsen, K. F., Pærregaard, A., Sandström, B., Tvede, M., & Jakobsen, M.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
1999-11
Volume
65
Issue
11
Pages
4949-4956
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2138740429
Cited by
878
References
3
FWCI
19.01
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

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.