Cited by 24Carcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentProbiotics and Fermented FoodsBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology

No genotoxicity is detectable for Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 by standard in vitro and in vivo tests

Open access
Dubbert, Silke, Klinkert, Birgit, Schimiczek, Michael, Wassenaar, Trudy M., Bünau, Rudolf von·2020·European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology

Abstract

Probiotic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 (EcN) has a long history of safe use. However, the recently discovered presence of a pks locus in its genome presumably producing colibactin has questioned its safety, as colibactin has been implicated in genotoxicity. Here, we assess the genotoxic potential of EcN. Metabolic products were tested in vitro by the Ames test, a mutagenicity assay developed to detect point mutation-inducing activity. Live EcN were tested by an adapted Ames test. Neither the standard nor the adapted Ames test resulted in increased numbers of revertant colonies, indicating that EcN metabolites or viable cells lacked mutagenic activity. The in vivo Mammalian Alkaline Comet Assay (the gold standard for detecting DNA-strand breaks) was used to determine potentially induced DNA-strand breaks in cells of the gastro-intestinal tract of rats orally administered with viable EcN. Bacteria were given at 10 9 –10 11 colony forming units (CFU) per animal by oral gavage on 2 consecutive days and daily for a period of 28 days to 5 rats per group. No significant differences compared to negative controls were found. These results demonstrate that EcN does not induce DNA-strand breaks and does not have any detectable genotoxic potential in the test animals.

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 · 10.1556/1886.2019.00025

Cites

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 24

Authors
Dubbert, S., Klinkert, B., Schimiczek, M., Wassenaar, T. M., & Bünau, R. V.
Affiliations
  • Ardeypharm (Germany) (DE)
  • Molecular Microbiology and Genomics Consultants (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Bünau, Rudolf von
Venue
European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology
Published
2020-03
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
11-19
ISSN
  • 2062-509X (ISSN-L)
  • 2062-8633
OpenAlex
W3010832830
Cited by
24
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Keywords
probiotics, genotoxicity, colibactin, Ames test, alkaline comet assay, DNA strand breaks, mutagenicity, gastrointestinal tract

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