Cited by 123Probiotics and Fermented FoodsReproductive tract infections researchGut microbiota and health

Lactobacillus crispatus and its Nonaggregating Mutant in Human Colonization Trials

Open access
Cesena, C., Morelli, L., Alander, M., Siljander, T., Tuomola, E., Salminen, S., Mattila-Sandholm, T., Vilpponen-Salmela, T. +1 more·2001·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

A wild-type Lactobacillus crispatus, showing a cell aggregation phenotype and its spontaneous nonaggregating mutant were compared for their in vitro adhesion properties to human ileal mucus and to a cultured human colonic cell line (Caco2) and for their in vivo colonization and adhesion potential with colonoscopy patients as volunteers in feeding trials. The wild-type strain adhered better to mucus or to Caco2 cells than did the mutant. Altogether, three human trials with the wild type and two with the mutant strain were performed. In two of the trials, the wild type could be recovered from either fecal samples or biopsies taken from the colon, while the mutant strain could not be demonstrated in either of the trials where it was used. The L. crispatus colonies recovered from the trials were often mixed, and several enterococci and lactobacillus strains coaggregating with L. crispatus wild type could be isolated. The results indicate that the surface-mediated properties, such as aggregation, of lactobacilli can have a role in adhesion and colonization.

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 · 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(01)74559-6

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Auto-aggregation ability correlates positively with adherence to human epithelial cell lines and the ability to co-aggregate with Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and pathogenic Escherichia coli.

    “Auto-aggregation ability correlates positively with adherence to human epithelial cell lines and the ability to co-aggregate with Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and pathogenic Escherichia coli [8, 12–16].”

    From Bistable auto-aggregation phenotype in Lactiplantibacillus plantarum emerges after cultivation in in vitro colonic microbiota (2021) · cites this paper as [8]

    In “The In Vitro Adhesion Properties of the Strains” (page unavailable), aggregating L. crispatus M247 adhered better to human Caco2 cells than its nonaggregating mutant. The bacteriological-results section reports coaggregation with enterococci and L. paracasei, not with Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, or pathogenic E. coli. Thus the paper supports the adhesion comparison and a narrower coaggregation finding, but not the named-pathogen portion of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Rosenberg, M. 1984. Isolation of pigmented and non-pigmented mu- tants of Serratia marcescens with reduced cell surface hydropho- bicity. J. Bacteriol. 160:480-482. Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 6, 2001
  2. Rosenberg, M., and R. J. Doyle. 1990. Microbial cell surface hydropho- bicity: history, measurement and significance. Pages 1-37 in Mi- crobial Cell Surface Hyrophobicity M. Rosenberg and R. J. Doyle, eds. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cesena, C., Morelli, L., Alander, M., Siljander, T., Tuomola, E., Salminen, S., Mattila-Sandholm, T., Vilpponen-Salmela, T., & von Wright, A.
Affiliations
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (FI)
Corresponding author
Morelli, L.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2001-05
Volume
84
Issue
5
Pages
1001-1010
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1974465194
Cited by
123
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
Lactobacillus crispatus, cell aggregation, bacterial adhesion, Caco-2 cells, probiotics, co-aggregation, Enterococcus, fecal recovery
MeSH terms
Bacterial Adhesion, Biopsy, Cells, Cultured, Colon, Feces, Humans, Intestinal Mucosa, Lactobacillus, Mutation, Phenotype, Caco-2 Cells, Probiotics

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