CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Isolation and characterization of novel Fusobacterium nucleatum bacteriophages

Wang, Yue, Liu, Zhitong, Chen, Qian, Yi, Liqi, Xu, Zihao, Cai, Mufeng, Qin, Jinhong, Zhang, Yan, Du, Guanhuan, Hong, Jie, Guo, Xiaokui, Liu, Chang·2022·Frontiers in Microbiology
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2022.945315PMC PMC9670143
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Fusobacterium nucleatum is a strictly anaerobic, Gram-negative bacterial species that is a member of the commensal flora in the oral cavity and gut. Recent studies suggested that the increase of abundance is associated with the development of various diseases, among which colorectal cancer is of the biggest concerns. Phage therapy is regarded as a potential approach to control the number of F. nucleatum, which may contribute to the prevention and treatment of related diseases. In this study, we isolated five isolates of bacteriophage targeting F. nucleatum. The morphological, biological, genomic and functional characteristics of five bacteriophages were investigated. Transmission electron microscopy revealed that JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5 are all myoviruses. The size of the JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5 genomes was 180,066 bp (JD-Fnp1), 41,329 bp (JD-Fnp2), 38,962 bp (JD-Fnp3), 180,231 bp (JD-Fnp4), and 41,353 bp (JD-Fnp5) respectively. The biological features including pH and heat stability, host range, growth characteristics of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5 displayed different patterns. Among them, JD-Fnp4 is considered to have the greatest clinical application value. The identification and characterization of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5 provides a basis for subsequent therapeutic strategy exploration of F. nucleatum-related diseases.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fmicb.2022.945315

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 TEM micrograph of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1. The length and width of the head are 155 ± 5 nm and 140 ± 5 nm respectively, and the length of its retractable tail is 335 ± 5 nm. Magnification: × 36 k. (B) JD-Fnp2. The length of its head is 60 ± 2 nm, and the width is 50 ± 3 nm. The retractable tail is 130 ± 5 nm in length. Magnification: × 73 k. (C) JD-Fnp3. It has a head of the polyhedron with a radial length of 55 ± 3 nm, and a retractable tail with a length of 135 ± 2 nm. Magnification: × 54 k. (D) JD-Fnp4. The diameter of the capsid head and the length of the flexible tail are about 130 ± 5 nm and 300 ± 4 nm. Magnification: × 98 k. (E) JD-Fnp5. The diameter of the capsid head and the length of the flexible tail are 61 ± 2 nm and 144 ± 5 nm. Magnification: × 150 k. These measurements were taken on 10 different particles.
Figure 1 TEM micrograph of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1. The length and width of the head are 155 ± 5 nm and 140 ± 5 nm respectively, and the length of its retractable tail is 335 ± 5 nm. Magnification: × 36 k. (B) JD-Fnp2. The length of its head is 60 ± 2 nm, and the width is 50 ± 3 nm. The retractable tail is 130 ± 5 nm in length. Magnification: × 73 k. (C) JD-Fnp3. It has a head of the polyhedron with a radial length of 55 ± 3 nm, and a retractable tail with a length of 135 ± 2 nm. Magnification: × 54 k. (D) JD-Fnp4. The diameter of the capsid head and the length of the flexible tail are about 130 ± 5 nm and 300 ± 4 nm. Magnification: × 98 k. (E) JD-Fnp5. The diameter of the capsid head and the length of the flexible tail are 61 ± 2 nm and 144 ± 5 nm. Magnification: × 150 k. These measurements were taken on 10 different particles.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The adsorption profile of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. The x-axis shows the incubation time of phages with host bacteria, and the y-axis shows the percentage of free phage particles. Data are from three times independent experiments.
Figure 2 The adsorption profile of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. The x-axis shows the incubation time of phages with host bacteria, and the y-axis shows the percentage of free phage particles. Data are from three times independent experiments.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The one-step growth profile of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. The x-axis shows the incubation time of phages with host bacteria; the y-axis shows the fold of increase of phage titers at different time points. Data are from three times independent experiments.
Figure 3 The one-step growth profile of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. The x-axis shows the incubation time of phages with host bacteria; the y-axis shows the fold of increase of phage titers at different time points. Data are from three times independent experiments.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Thermal stability of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. The x-axis represents temperature range; the y-axis represents the relative titer of JD-Fnp phage to the titer at 37°C or 4°C (The control temperature of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp4 is 37°C, and the control temperature of JD-Fnp5 is 4°C that the phage has the best stability); Percentage of active JD-Fnp phages = (N/N0) × 100, where N is the number of viable phages after 1 h of incubation and N0 was the initial number of phages. All experiments were repeated in triplicate.
Figure 4 Thermal stability of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. The x-axis represents temperature range; the y-axis represents the relative titer of JD-Fnp phage to the titer at 37°C or 4°C (The control temperature of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp4 is 37°C, and the control temperature of JD-Fnp5 is 4°C that the phage has the best stability); Percentage of active JD-Fnp phages = (N/N0) × 100, where N is the number of viable phages after 1 h of incubation and N0 was the initial number of phages. All experiments were repeated in triplicate.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 pH stability of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. The x-axis represents the pH range; the y-axis shows the percentage of the active phage titers in different pH values to that in pH 7.5. All experiments were repeated in triplicate.
Figure 5 pH stability of phages JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. The x-axis represents the pH range; the y-axis shows the percentage of the active phage titers in different pH values to that in pH 7.5. All experiments were repeated in triplicate.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 In vitro bactericidal activity of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5 with host bacteria JD-Fn1. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. F. nucleatum strain JD-Fn1 was infected by JD-Fnp phages with different MOI. The x-axis represents the co-culture time of JD-Fnp phage and JD-Fn1; the y-axis represents the change of OD600 in the mixture. Data are displayed as the means ± SD (error bars) from three independent experiments.
Figure 6 In vitro bactericidal activity of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5 with host bacteria JD-Fn1. (A) JD-Fnp1; (B) JD-Fnp2; (C) JD-Fnp3; (D) JD-Fnp4; (E) JD-Fnp5. F. nucleatum strain JD-Fn1 was infected by JD-Fnp phages with different MOI. The x-axis represents the co-culture time of JD-Fnp phage and JD-Fn1; the y-axis represents the change of OD600 in the mixture. Data are displayed as the means ± SD (error bars) from three independent experiments.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Complete genome sequences of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. The functional modules were assigned based on gene annotation and genomic organization and are shown in different colors.
Figure 7 Complete genome sequences of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. The functional modules were assigned based on gene annotation and genomic organization and are shown in different colors.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Comparative genomic analysis of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1 and JD-Fnp4; (B) JD-Fnp2, JD-Fnp3 and JD-Fnp5. Analysis was performed with blastn (BLAST v2.2.31+) at DNA level. The nucleotide identity of the homologous regions (percentage) is shown as a color gradient, the pink bar represents for forward blast hits and the gray bar represents for inverted blast hits; the scale is shown below. Known functional homologous genes are shown below.
Figure 8 Comparative genomic analysis of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5. (A) JD-Fnp1 and JD-Fnp4; (B) JD-Fnp2, JD-Fnp3 and JD-Fnp5. Analysis was performed with blastn (BLAST v2.2.31+) at DNA level. The nucleotide identity of the homologous regions (percentage) is shown as a color gradient, the pink bar represents for forward blast hits and the gray bar represents for inverted blast hits; the scale is shown below. Known functional homologous genes are shown below.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Phylogenetic tree of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5 and relative bacteriophages based on the complete genome sequences. The genome sequences of two F. nucleatum phages reported previously were downloaded from NCBI, and all the accession numbers are shown in () following the names of phages. The phylogenetic tree was constructed with VipTree (http://www.genome.jp/viptree) based on whole genome sequences at DNA level.
Figure 9 Phylogenetic tree of JD-Fnp1 ~ JD-Fnp5 and relative bacteriophages based on the complete genome sequences. The genome sequences of two F. nucleatum phages reported previously were downloaded from NCBI, and all the accession numbers are shown in () following the names of phages. The phylogenetic tree was constructed with VipTree (http://www.genome.jp/viptree) based on whole genome sequences at DNA level.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Abed, 2016, Fap2 mediates fusobacterium nucleatum colorectal adenocarcinoma enrichment by binding to tumor-expressed gal-GalNAc, Cell Host Microbe, 20, 215, 10.1016/j.chom.2016.07.006 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Aghaee, 2021, Improving the inhibitory effect of phages against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from a burn patient using a combination of phages and antibiotics, Viruses, 13, 1, 10.3390/v13020334 · DOI
  3. Aiewsakun, 2018, Evaluation of the genomic diversity of viruses infecting bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes using a common bioinformatic platform: steps towards a unified taxonomy, J. Gen. Virol., 99, 1331, 10.1099/jgv.0.001110 · DOI
  4. Aziz, 2008, The RAST server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology, BMC Genomics, 9, 75, 10.1186/1471-2164-9-75 · DOI
  5. Barrow, 1997, Bacteriophage therapy and prophylaxis: rediscovery and renewed assessment of potential, Trends Microbiol., 5, 268, 10.1016/s0966-842x(97)01054-8 · DOI
  6. Bin Jang, 2019, Taxonomic assignment of uncultivated prokaryotic virus genomes is enabled by gene-sharing networks, Nat. Biotechnol., 37, 632, 10.1038/s41587-019-0100-8 · DOI
  7. Bolstad, 1996, Taxonomy, biology, and periodontal aspects of fusobacterium nucleatum, Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 9, 55, 10.1128/cmr.9.1.55 · DOI
  8. Brennan, 2019, Fusobacterium nucleatum - symbiont, opportunist and oncobacterium, Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 17, 156, 10.1038/s41579-018-0129-6 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Castellarin, 2012, Fusobacterium nucleatum infection is prevalent in human colorectal carcinoma, Genome Res., 22, 299, 10.1101/gr.126516.111 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Chan, 2013, Phage cocktails and the future of phage therapy, Future Microbiol., 8, 769, 10.2217/fmb.13.47 · DOI
  11. Chen, Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes metastasis in colorectal cancer by activating autophagy signaling via the upregulation of CARD3 expression, Theranostics, 10, 323, 10.7150/thno.38870 · DOI
  12. Chen, Antibacterial activity of viable and heat-killed probiotic strains against oral pathogens, Lett. Appl. Microbiol., 70, 310, 10.1111/lam.13275 · DOI
  13. Chen, 2018, Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes M2 polarization of macrophages in the microenvironment of colorectal tumours via a TLR4-dependent mechanism, Cancer Immunol. Immunother., 67, 1635, 10.1007/s00262-018-2233-x · DOI
  14. Chen, Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal cancer metastasis by modulating KRT7-AS/KRT7, Gut Microbes, 11, 511, 10.1080/19490976.2019.1695494 · DOI
  15. Chen, 2005, VFDB: a reference database for bacterial virulence factors, Nucleic Acids Res., 33, D325, 10.1093/nar/gki008 · DOI
  16. Cochrane, 2016, Complete genome sequences and analysis of the fusobacterium nucleatum subspecies animalis 7-1 bacteriophage ɸFunu1 and ɸFunu2, Anaerobe, 38, 125, 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.10.013 · DOI
  17. Cui, 2017, Characterization and complete genome of the virulent Myoviridae phage JD007 active against a variety of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from different hospitals in Shanghai, China. Virol. J., 14, 26, 10.1186/s12985-017-0701-0 · DOI
  18. Dedrick, 2019, Engineered bacteriophages for treatment of a patient with a disseminated drug-resistant mycobacterium abscessus, Nat. Med., 25, 730, 10.1038/s41591-019-0437-z · DOI
  19. Dong, 2020, Bioinorganic hybrid bacteriophage for modulation of intestinal microbiota to remodel tumor-immune microenvironment against colorectal cancer, Sci. Adv., 6, eaba1590, 10.1126/sciadv.aba1590 · DOI
  20. Duan, 2019, Bacteriophage targeting of gut bacterium attenuates alcoholic liver disease, Nature, 575, 505, 10.1038/s41586-019-1742-x · DOI
  21. Feuille, 1996, Mixed infection with Porphyromonas gingivalis and fusobacterium nucleatum in a murine lesion model: potential synergistic effects on virulence, Infect. Immun., 64, 2094, 10.1128/iai.64.6.2094-2100.1996 · DOI
  22. Geier, 1973, Fate of bacteriophage lambda in non-immune germ-free mice, Nature, 246, 221, 10.1038/246221a0 · DOI
  23. Gur, Immunity, 42, 344, 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.01.010 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Han, 2015, Fusobacterium nucleatum: a commensal-turned pathogen, Curr. Opin. Microbiol., 23, 141, 10.1016/j.mib.2014.11.013 · DOI
  25. Hernández, 2020, Phages in anaerobic systems, Viruses, 12, 1, 10.3390/v12101091 · DOI
  26. Hesse, 2021, Bacteriophage treatment rescues mice infected with multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae ST258, MBio, 12, 1, 10.1128/mBio.00034-21 · DOI
  27. Hsu, 2019, Dynamic modulation of the gut microbiota and metabolome by bacteriophages in a mouse model, Cell Host Microbe, 25, 803, 10.1016/j.chom.2019.05.001 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Jang, 2016, Comparative study on the characteristics of Weissella cibaria CMU and probiotic strains for Oral care, Molecules, 21, 1, 10.3390/molecules21121752 · DOI
  29. Jault, 2019, Efficacy and tolerability of a cocktail of bacteriophages to treat burn wounds infected by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PhagoBurn): a randomised, controlled, double-blind phase 1/2 trial, Lancet Infect. Dis., 19, 35, 10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30482-1 · DOI
  30. Kabwe, 2019, Genomic, morphological and functional characterisation of novel bacteriophage FNU1 capable of disrupting fusobacterium nucleatum biofilms, Sci. Rep., 9, 9107, 10.1038/s41598-019-45549-6 · DOI
  31. Kifelew, 2020, Efficacy of phage cocktail AB-SA01 therapy in diabetic mouse wound infections caused by multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, BMC Microbiol., 20, 204, 10.1186/s12866-020-01891-8 · DOI
  32. Koskella, 2014, Bacteria-phage coevolution as a driver of ecological and evolutionary processes in microbial communities, FEMS Microbiol. Rev., 38, 916, 10.1111/1574-6976.12072 · DOI
  33. Kostic, 2013, Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment, Cell Host Microbe, 14, 207, 10.1016/j.chom.2013.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Kostic, 2012, Genomic analysis identifies association of fusobacterium with colorectal carcinoma, Genome Res., 22, 292, 10.1101/gr.126573.111 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Leshkasheli, 2019, Efficacy of newly isolated and highly potent bacteriophages in a mouse model of extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii bacteraemia, J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist., 19, 255, 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.05.005 · DOI
  36. Letunic, 2021, Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation, Nucleic Acids Res., 49, W293, 10.1093/nar/gkab301 · DOI
  37. Liu, 2020, Fusobacterium nucleatum exacerbates colitis by damaging epithelial barriers and inducing aberrant inflammation, J. Dig. Dis., 21, 385, 10.1111/1751-2980.12909 · DOI
  38. Liu, 2009, ARDB--antibiotic resistance genes database, Nucleic Acids Res., 37, D443, 10.1093/nar/gkn656 · DOI
  39. Loh, 2020, Encapsulation and delivery of therapeutic phages, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 87, 1, 10.1128/aem.01979-20 · DOI
  40. Lu, 2020, CDD/SPARCLE: the conserved domain database in 2020, Nucleic Acids Res., 48, D265, 10.1093/nar/gkz991 · DOI
  41. Machuca, 2010, Isolation of a novel bacteriophage specific for the periodontal pathogen fusobacterium nucleatum, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 76, 7243, 10.1128/aem.01135-10 · DOI
  42. Mima, 2015, Fusobacterium nucleatum and T cells in colorectal carcinoma, JAMA Oncol., 1, 653, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1377 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Nishimura, 2017, ViPTree: the viral proteomic tree server, Bioinformatics, 33, 2379, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx157 · DOI
  44. Page, 2015, Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis, Bioinformatics, 31, 3691, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv421 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Parhi, 2020, Breast cancer colonization by fusobacterium nucleatum accelerates tumor growth and metastatic progression, Nat. Commun., 11, 3259, 10.1038/s41467-020-16967-2 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Rhoads, 2009, Bacteriophage therapy of venous leg ulcers in humans: results of a phase I safety trial, J. Wound Care, 18, 237, 10.12968/jowc.2009.18.6.42801 · DOI
  47. Roux, 2021, IMG/VR v3: an integrated ecological and evolutionary framework for interrogating genomes of uncultivated viruses, Nucleic Acids Res., 49, D764, 10.1093/nar/gkaa946 · DOI
  48. Rubinstein, Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/beta-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin, Cell Host Microbe, 14, 195, 10.1016/j.chom.2013.07.012 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Rubinstein, Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/β-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin, Cell Host Microbe, 14, 195, 10.1016/j.chom.2013.07.012 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Shen, 2021, Phage genome annotation: where to begin and end, Phage, 2, 183, 10.1089/phage.2021.0015 · DOI
  51. Signat, 2011, Fusobacterium nucleatum in periodontal health and disease, Curr. Issues Mol. Biol., 13, 25, 10.21775/cimb.013.025 · DOI
  52. Strauss, 2011, Invasive potential of gut mucosa-derived fusobacterium nucleatum positively correlates with IBD status of the host, Inflamm. Bowel Dis., 17, 1971, 10.1002/ibd.21606 · DOI
  53. Szabo, 2013, Tumor-derived hydrogen sulfide, produced by cystathionine-β-synthase, stimulates bioenergetics, cell proliferation, and angiogenesis in colon cancer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 110, 12474, 10.1073/pnas.1306241110 · DOI
  54. Turner, Phage annotation guide: guidelines for assembly and high-quality annotation, Phage (New Rochelle), 2, 170, 10.1089/phage.2021.0013 · DOI
  55. Turner, A roadmap for genome-based phage taxonomy, Viruses, 13, 1, 10.3390/v13030506 · DOI
  56. Wong, 2019, Gut microbiota in colorectal cancer: mechanisms of action and clinical applications, Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., 16, 690, 10.1038/s41575-019-0209-8 · DOI
  57. Wright, 2009, A controlled clinical trial of a therapeutic bacteriophage preparation in chronic otitis due to antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; a preliminary report of efficacy, Clin. Otolaryngol., 34, 349, 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2009.01973.x · DOI
  58. Wu, 2018, Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis in mice via a toll-like receptor 4/p21-activated kinase 1 Cascade, Dig. Dis. Sci., 63, 1210, 10.1007/s10620-018-4999-2 · DOI
  59. Xue, 2018, Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase expression regulates the survival and proliferation of fusobacterium nucleatum in THP-1-derived macrophages, Cell Death Dis., 9, 355, 10.1038/s41419-018-0389-0 · DOI
  60. Yang, 2017, Fusobacterium nucleatum increases proliferation of colorectal cancer cells and tumor development in mice by activating toll-like receptor 4 signaling to nuclear factor-κB, and up-regulating expression of MicroRNA-21, Gastroenterology, 152, 851, 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.11.018 · DOI
  61. Yu, 2015, Berberine may rescue fusobacterium nucleatum-induced colorectal tumorigenesis by modulating the tumor microenvironment, Oncotarget, 6, 32013, 10.18632/oncotarget.5166 · DOI
  62. Zhu, 2010, Competition between yogurt probiotics and periodontal pathogens in vitro, Acta Odontol. Scand., 68, 261, 10.3109/00016357.2010.492235 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Y., Liu, Z., Chen, Q., Yi, L., Xu, Z., Cai, M., Qin, J., Zhang, Y., Du, G., Hong, J., Guo, X., & Liu, C.
Venue
Frontiers in Microbiology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-11-03
Volume
13
ISSN
1664-302X
DOI
10.3389/fmicb.2022.945315
PMC
PMC9670143
Cited by
23
References
3
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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