Cited by 29Probiotics and Fermented FoodsOral microbiology and periodontitis researchReproductive tract infections research

In vitro Antagonistic Growth Effects of Lactobacillus fermentum and Lactobacillus salivarius and Their Fermentative Broth on Periodontal Pathogens

Open access
Chen, Ling-Ju, Tsai, Hsiu-Ting, Chen, Wei-Jen, Hsieh, Chu-Yang, Wang, Pi-Chieh, Chen, Chung-Shih, Wang, Lina, Yang, Chi-Chiang·2012·Brazilian Journal of Microbiology

Abstract

As lactobacilli possess an antagonistic growth property, these bacteria may be beneficial as bioprotective agents for infection control. However, whether the antagonistic growth effects are attributed to the lactobacilli themselves or their fermentative broth remains unclear. The antagonistic growth effects of Lactobacillus salivarius and Lactobacillus fermentum as well as their fermentative broth were thus tested using both disc agar diffusion test and broth dilution method, and their effects on periodontal pathogens, including Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguis, and Porphyromonas gingivalis in vitro at different concentrations and for different time periods were also compared. Both Lactobacillus salivarius and Lactobacillus fermentum and their concentrated fermentative broth were shown to inhibit significantly the growth of Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguis, and Porphyromonas gingivalis, although different inhibitory effects were observed for different pathogens. The higher the counts of lactobacilli and the higher the folds of concentrated fermentative broth, the stronger the inhibitory effects are observed. The inhibitory effect is demonstrated to be dose-dependent. Moreover, for the lactobacilli themselves, Lactobacillus fermentum showed stronger inhibitory effects than Lactobacillus salivarius. However, the fermentative broth of Lactobacillus fermentum showed weaker inhibitory effects than that of Lactobacillus salivarius. These data suggested that lactobacilli and their fermentative broth exhibit antagonistic growth activity, and consumption of probiotics or their broth containing lactobacilli may benefit oral health.

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 · 10.1590/s1517-83822012000400019

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Postbiotics of Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus salivarius, and Lactococcus lactis can suppress the growth of opportunistic or pathogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus sanguinis, Streptococcus mutans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Tannerella forsythia, and Treponema denticola.

    “The postbiotics of Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus salivarius, and Lactococcus lactis can suppress the growth of opportunistic or pathogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus sanguinis, Streptococcus mutans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Tannerella forsythia, and Treponema denticola [11,12].”

    From Analysis of Chemical Structure and Antibiofilm Properties of Exopolysaccharides from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum EIR/IF-1 Postbiotics (2022) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results (Broth dilution method; page not provided) report that concentrated fermentative broths of L. fermentum and L. salivarius inhibited S. mutans, S. sanguis, and P. gingivalis in vitro. The paper does not support the attributed effects of Lactococcus lactis or effects against F. nucleatum, T. forsythia, or T. denticola; it names S. sanguis rather than S. sanguinis. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, L.-J., Tsai, H.-T., Chen, W.-J., Hsieh, C.-Y., Wang, P.-C., Chen, C.-S., Wang, L., & Yang, C.-C.
Affiliations
  • Pojen General Hospital (TW)
  • Chung Shan Medical University (TW)
  • Chaoyang University of Technology (TW)
  • Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (TW)
Venue
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
Published
2012-12
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
1376-1384
ISSN
1517-8382 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013390797
Cited by
29
References
34
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Brazilian Journal of Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Chung Shan Medical University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus salivarius, periodontal pathogens, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguinis, Porphyromonas gingivalis, probiotics, antibacterial activity, oral health, dose-dependent inhibition

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