The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Lactobacillus inhibitor production against Escherichia coli and coaggregation ability with uropathogens
Abstract
Previous investigations have shown that certain strains of lactobacilli can competitively exclude uropathogens from attaching to uroepithelial cells and from causing urinary tract infection in animals. The finding of an inhibitory effect produced by Lactobacillus casei ssp. rhamnosus GR-1 against the growth of uropathogens was investigated further using two Escherichia coli indicator strains Hu 734 and ATCC 25922. There were two phases to the inhibitor studies. The first one using an agar sandwich technique showed that the inhibitor activity was heat stable and inhibitory to the E. coli. The second phase showed that MRS broth provided optimum lactobacilli growth and inhibitor production. In addition, the inhibition was present under conditions buffering for acid and pH. The data indicated that the inhibitory effect was not due to bacteriophages or hydrogen peroxide. Strain GR-1 was found to coaggregate with E. coli ATCC 25922 in urine, a phenomenon that has not previously been reported for urogenital bacteria. An in vitro assay system was developed to study the coaggregation of various lactobacilli and uropathogens. The results demonstrated that highest coaggregation scores occurred after 4 h incubation at 37 °C with lactobacilli and two type-1 fimbriated E. coli strains. Of the nine lactobacilli strains tested, each was found to coaggregate with 2 or more of the 13 uropathogens. The dominance of inhibitor-producing lactobacilli on the urogenital epithelium and the ability of these organisms to interact closely with uropathogens would constitute an important host defense mechanism against infection.
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
Effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on human health
Markowiak, P., & Śliżewska, K. (2017) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu9091021 · Cited by 2,401
Physico-chemistry of initial microbial adhesive interactions – its mechanisms and methods for study
Bos, R. (1999) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.1999.tb00396.x · Cited by 1,216
Kos, B., Šušković, J., Vuković, S., Šimpraga, M., Frece, J., & Matošić, S. (2003) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01915.x · Cited by 880
Bacterial coaggregation: an integral process in the development of multi-species biofilms
Rickard, A. H., Gilbert, P., High, N. J., Kolenbrander, P. E., & Handley, P. S. (2003) · Trends in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/s0966-842x(02)00034-3 · Cited by 765
Trunk, T., Bacterial Cell Surface Group, S. F. G. A. E. B., S. Khalil, H., & C. Leo, J. (2018) · AIMS Microbiology · doi:10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.140 · Cited by 444
“This may actually be one of the mechanisms of how some probiotic strains exert their beneficial effects, though it has not been widely realised [151].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Reid, G., McGroarty, J. A., Angotti, R., & Cook, R. L.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Microbiology
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 1988-03-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 344-351
- ISSN
- 0008-4166 (ISSN-L)
- 1480-3275
- OpenAlex
- W2056355395
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Lactobacillus inhibitor production against Escherichia coli and coaggregation ability with uropathogens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/m88-063
- The paper
- Reid, G., McGroarty, J. A., Angotti, R., & Cook, R. L. (1988). Lactobacillus inhibitor production against Escherichia coli and coaggregation ability with uropathogens. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1139/m88-063
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.