The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Guidance on the assessment of bacterial susceptibility to antimicrobials of human and veterinary importance
Open accessAbstract
This Guidance document is intended to provide a method to identify resistance to antimicrobials of human and veterinary importance in bacterial strains intended for use as feed additives. Such tests should be made in a consistent manner using internationally recognised and standardised methods. As a basic requirement, the minimum inhibitory concentration of the antimicrobials should be determined for each of the following substances: ampicillin, vancomycin, gentamicin, kanamycin, streptomycin, erythromycin, clindamycin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol and, in specific cases, tylosine, apramycin, nalidixic acid, sulfonamide and trimethoprim. These antimicrobials are chosen to detect a wide range of determinants for resistance. The cut-off values identified by the FEEDAP Panel should be seen as a pragmatic response intended to introduce consistency in the separation of strains with acquired resistance from susceptible strains. These values are not intended for any purpose other than the assessment of microbial products for the possible presence of antimicrobial resistance. When a bacterial strain demonstrates higher resistance to a specific antimicrobial than the other strains of the same taxonomical unit, the presence of acquired resistance is indicated and additional information is needed on the genetic basis of the antimicrobial resistance. Any bacterial strain carrying an acquired resistance to antimicrobial that is shown to be due to the acquisition of genetic determinant presents the greatest potential for horizontal spread and should not be used as a feed additive.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The strains of E. coli not harboring pathogenic genes were tested for their sensitivity to antibiotics according to CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) M07 [65].”
From Selection, Comparative Genomics, and Potential Probiotic Features of Escherichia coli 5C, a pks-Negative Strain Isolated from Healthy Infant Donor Feces (2026) · cites this paper as [66]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“MIC values were interpreted according to CLSI or EUCAST guidelines, consistent with EFSA recommendations16 for standardized MIC determination in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.17,18”
From Safety and efficacy concerns in Indian probiotics: Insights from whole-genome sequencing and in vitro assessment (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“(iii) antibiotic-sensitive according to the EFSA panel”
From Selection, Comparative Genomics, and Potential Probiotic Features of Escherichia coli 5C, a pks-Negative Strain Isolated from Healthy Infant Donor Feces (2026) · cites this paper as [66]
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.
Citations
Cites
Susceptibility of Lactobacillus spp. to antimicrobial agents
Danielsen, M., & Wind, A. (2003) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1605(02)00254-4 · Cited by 561
Aarestrup, F. M., Agersø, Y., Gerner‐Smidt, P., Madsen, M., & Jensen, L. (2000) · Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease · doi:10.1016/s0732-8893(00)00130-9 · Cited by 480
Antibiotic resistance in non-enterococcal lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria
Ammor, M. S., Belén Flórez, A., & Mayo, B. (2007) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2006.11.001 · Cited by 460
Antibiotic Resistances of Starter and Probiotic Strains of Lactic Acid Bacteria
Hummel, A., Hertel, C., Holzapfel, W. H., & Franz, C. M. A. P. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02105-06 · Cited by 392
Klare, I., Konstabel, C., Werner, G., Huys, G. R. B., Vankerckhoven, V., Kahlmeter, G., Hildebrandt, B., Müller-Bertling, S., Witte, W., & Goossens, H. (2007) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkm035 · Cited by 365
Klare, I., Konstabel, C., Müller-Bertling, S., Reissbrodt, R., Huys, G. R. B., Vancanneyt, M., Swings, J., Goossens, H., & Witte, W. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.12.8982-8986.2005 · Cited by 260
Swenson, J. M., Facklam, R. R., & Thornsberry, C. (1990) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.34.4.543 · Cited by 214
Antimicrobial susceptibility of bifidobacteria
Moubareck, C. A., Gavini, F., Vaugien, L., Butel, M. J., & Doucet‐Populaire, F. (2004) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkh495 · Cited by 199
D’Aimmo, M. R., Modesto, M., & Biavati, B. (2007) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.10.003 · Cited by 196
Delgado, S., Flórez, A. B., & Mayo, B. (2005) · Current Microbiology · doi:10.1007/s00284-004-4431-3 · Cited by 195
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Emerging issues in probiotic safety: 2023 perspectives
Merenstein, D., Pot, B., Leyer, G., Ouwehand, A. C., Preidis, G. A., Elkins, C. A., Hill, C., Lewis, Z. T., Shane, A. L., Zmora, N., et al. (2023) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2023.2185034 · Cited by 481
(BIOHAZ), E. P. O. B. H., Ricci, A., Allende, A., Bolton, D., Chemaly, M., Davies, R., Gironés, R., Herman, L., Koutsoumanis, K. P., Lindqvist, R., et al. (2017) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4664 · Cited by 467
Martín, R., Miquel, S., Benevides, L., Bridonneau, C., Robert, V., Hudault, S., Chain, F., Berteau, O., Azevedo, V., Chatel, J. M., et al. (2017) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.01226 · Cited by 398
Bacillus strains as human probiotics: characterization, safety, microbiome, and probiotic carrier
Lee, N., Kim, W.-S., & Paik, H. (2019) · Food Science and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s10068-019-00691-9 · Cited by 393
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 353
Metadata
- Authors
- (FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F.
- Corresponding author
- EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP)
- Venue
- EFSA Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4206302370
- Cited by
- 904
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 54.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- EFSA Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- OpenAgrar (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Keywords
- antimicrobial resistance, feed additives, bacterial strain, minimum inhibitory concentration, acquired resistance, ampicillin, vancomycin, gentamicin, kanamycin, streptomycin, erythromycin, clindamycin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol, apramycin, nalidixic acid, sulfonamides, trimethoprim
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
