CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Probiotics and Fermented FoodsAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAquaculture disease management and microbiota

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Characterization of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated From the Gastrointestinal Tract of a Wild Boar as Potential Probiotics

Open access
Li, Miao, Wang, Yi, Cui, Hongyu, Li, Yongfeng, Sun, Yuan, Qiu, Hua-Ji·2020·Frontiers in Veterinary Science
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2020.00049PMC PMC7026679
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are major microorganisms used for probiotic purposes and prime parts of the human and mammalian gut microbiota, which exert important health promoting effects on the host. The present study aimed to valuate and compare the probiotic potential and safety evaluation of LAB strains isolated from gastrointestinal tract of a wild boar from Greater Khingan Mountains, China. Amongst all of the isolated LAB strains, five isolates identified as Lactobacillus mucosae, L. salivarius, Enterococcus hirae, E. durans, and E. faecium, were remarkably resistant to acid and bile salt. The probiotic characteristics (including adhesion capability, antimicrobial activities, autoaggregation, and coaggregation abilities), and safety properties (including hemolytic activity, antibiotic resistance, and absence/presence of virulence factors) were evaluated. The results showed that all of five isolates exhibited high adhesive potential, remarkable aggregation capacity, and antibacterial activities. Upon assessment of safety, these strains were negative for hemolytic activity and all tested virulence genes. This study revealed that these LAB isolates, especially M2-71, possess desirable probiotic properties and have great potentials for the development of feed additives for animals to promote health.

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/fvets.2020.00049

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.

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?

  • These LAB have been reported to show a significant increase in co-aggregation at 24 h.

    “In addition, these LAB showed a significant increase in co-aggregation at 24 th h [49].”

    From EVALUATION OF ADHESIVE AND AGGREGATION PROPERTIES OF LACTIC ACID BACTERIA ISOLATED FROM DIFFERENT BIOTOPES (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Results (Autoaggregation and Coaggregation; page not available) say the five LAB isolates coaggregated with the tested pathogens and that coaggregation rates were time-dependent. The Methods list 24 h as a measurement point, but the Results do not report a statistically significant increase in coaggregation at 24 h; the explicit increase over time refers to autoaggregation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Co-aggregation between LAB and three pathogenic bacteria (S. Typhimurium, S. aureus, and E. coli) at 4 h has been reported to range between 10% and 30%.

    “It has been reported that the co-aggregation between LAB and three pathogenic bacteria ( S. Typhimurium, S. aureus and E. coli ), at 4 h, ranged between 10 and 30 %.”

    From EVALUATION OF ADHESIVE AND AGGREGATION PROPERTIES OF LACTIC ACID BACTERIA ISOLATED FROM DIFFERENT BIOTOPES (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Materials and Methods section reports measuring LAB coaggregation with S. Typhimurium, S. aureus, and E. coli at 4 h, and the Results section reports coaggregation with all three pathogens. Our copy does not give the claimed 10–30% range at 4 h; the Results refer to Figure 1 without stating those values in the available text. Page numbers are not provided. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 66 · Cited by 179

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Mehdi, 2018, Use of antibiotics in broiler production:Global impacts and alternatives, Anim Nutr., 4, 170, 10.1016/j.aninu.2018.03.002 · DOI
  2. Al-Khalaifa, 2019, Effect of dietary probiotics and prebiotics on the performance of broiler chickens, Poult Sci, 98, 4465, 10.3382/ps/pez282 · DOI
  3. Wang, 2019, Use of probiotics in aquaculture of China-a review of the past decade, Fish Shellfish Immunol., 86, 734, 10.1016/j.fsi.2018.12.026 · DOI
  4. Kim, 2019, Modulation of the intestinal microbiota of dogs by kefir as a functional dairy product, J Dairy Sci, 102, 3903, 10.3168/jds.2018-15639 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kim, 2019, Investigating the probiotic characteristics of four microbial strains with potential application in feed industry, PLoS ONE., 14, e0218922, 10.1371/journal.pone.0218922 · DOI
  6. Landete, 2017, A review of food-grade vectors in lactic acid bacteria: from the laboratory to their application, Crit Rev Biotechnol., 37, 296, 10.3109/07388551.2016.1144044 · DOI
  7. Endo, 2019, Isolation and identification of lactic acid bacteria from environmental samples, Methods Mol Biol., 1887, 3, 10.1007/978-1-4939-8907-2_1 · DOI
  8. Isolauri, 2001, Probiotics: effects on immunity, Am J Clin Nutr., 73, 444S, 10.1093/ajcn/73.2.444s · DOI
  9. Jager, 2018, Probiotic bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086 improves protein absorption and utilization, Probiot Antimicrob Proteins., 10, 611, 10.1007/s12602-017-9354-y · DOI
  10. Isaacs, 2008, Role of probiotic therapy in IBD, Inflamm Bowel Dis., 14, 1597, 10.1002/ibd.20465 · DOI
  11. Alard, 2018, New probiotic strains for inflammatory bowel disease management identified by combining in vitro and in vivo approaches, Benef Microbes., 9, 317, 10.3920/BM2017.0097 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Lakritz, 2014, Beneficial bacteria stimulate host immune cells to counteract dietary and genetic predisposition to mammary cancer in mice, Int J Cancer., 135, 529, 10.1002/ijc.28702 · DOI
  13. Niibo, 2019, Probiotic Lactobacillus gasseri SBT2055 improves insulin secretion in a diabetic rat model, J Dairy Sci., 102, 997, 10.3168/jds.2018-15203 · DOI
  14. Aswathy, 2008, Evaluation of the probiotic characteristics of newly isolated lactic acid bacteria, Appl Biochem Biotechnol., 151, 244, 10.1007/s12010-008-8183-6 · DOI
  15. Sirichokchatchawan, 2018, Autochthonous lactic acid bacteria isolated from pig faeces in Thailand show probiotic properties and antibacterial activity against enteric pathogenic bacteria, Microb Pathog, 119, 208, 10.1016/j.micpath.2018.04.031 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Renaud, 2019, Evaluation of a multispecies probiotic as a supportive treatment for diarrhea in dairy calves: a randomized clinical trial, J Dairy Sci., 102, 4498, 10.3168/jds.2018-15793 · DOI
  17. Parsa, 2018, The effects of dietary supplementation with different levels of Microzist as newly developed probiotics on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and immunological organs of broiler chicks, J Appl Anim Res, 46, 1097, 10.1080/09712119.2018.1467835 · DOI
  18. Laukova, 2015, Use of bacteriocin-producing, probiotic strain Enterococcus faecium AL41 to control intestinal microbiota in farm ostriches, Lett Appl Microbiol., 60, 531, 10.1111/lam.12409 · DOI
  19. Peng, 2019, Dietary probiotics have different effects on the composition of fecal microbiota in farmed raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and silver fox (Vulpes vulpes fulva), BMC Microbiol., 19, 109, 10.1186/s12866-019-1491-x · DOI
  20. Sharma, 2019, Selection and evaluation of probiotic and functional characteristics of autochthonous lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented wheat flour dough babroo, Probiotics & Antimicro. Prot., 11, 774, 10.1007/s12602-018-9466-z · DOI
  21. do Carmo, 2016, Lactobacillus fermentum ATCC 23271 displays in vitro inhibitory activities against Candida spp, Front Microbiol, 7, 1722, 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01722 · DOI
  22. Sarra, 1984, Colonization of a human intestine by four different genotypes of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Microbiologica, 7, 331
  23. Bin Masalam, 2018, Isolation, molecular characterization and probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria in saudi raw and fermented milk, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, 2018, 7970463, 10.1155/2018/7970463 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Dowarah, 2018, Selection and characterization of probiotic lactic acid bacteria and its impact on growth, nutrient digestibility, health and antioxidant status in weaned piglets, PLoS ONE, 13, e0192978, 10.1371/journal.pone.0192978 · DOI
  25. Nami, 2019, Probiotic properties of Enterococcus isolated from artisanal dairy products, Front Microbiol, 10, 300, 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00300 · DOI
  26. Collado, 2007, Probiotic strains and their combination inhibit in vitro adhesion of pathogens to pig intestinal mucosa, Curr Microbiol., 55, 260, 10.1007/s00284-007-0144-8 · DOI
  27. Valeriano, 2014, In vitro evaluation of the mucin-adhesion ability and probiotic potential of Lactobacillus mucosae LM1, J Appl Microbiol., 117, 485, 10.1111/jam.12539 · DOI
  28. Dowdell, 2019, Probiotic activity of Enterococcus faecium and Lactococcus lactis isolated from Thai fermented sausages and their protective effect against Clostridium difficile, Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins, 10.1007/s12602-019-09536-7 · DOI
  29. Muhammad, 2019, Assessment of the antimicrobial potentiality and functionality of Lactobacillus plantarum strains isolated from the conventional Inner Mongolian fermented cheese against foodborne pathogens, Pathogens, 8, E71, 10.3390/pathogens8020071 · DOI
  30. Aristimuño Ficoseco, 2018, Safety and growth optimization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from feedlot cattle for probiotic formula design, Front Microbiol., 9, 2220, 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02220 · DOI
  31. Al-Talib, 2015, Genotypic variations of virulent genes in Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolated from three hospitals in Malaysia, Adv Clin Exp Med., 24, 121, 10.17219/acem/38162 · DOI
  32. Espeche, 2012, Lactic acid bacteria from raw milk as potentially beneficial strains to prevent bovine mastitis, Anaerobe., 18, 103, 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2012.01.002 · DOI
  33. Vankerckhoven, 2004, Development of a multiplex PCR for the detection of asa1, gelE, cylA, esp, and hyl genes in Enterococci and survey for virulence determinants among European hospital isolates of Enterococcus faecium, J Clin Microbiol., 42, 4473, 10.1128/JCM.42.10.4473-4479.2004 · DOI
  34. Šeme, 2015, Acid resistance and response to pH-induced stress in two Lactobacillus plantarum strains with probiotic potential, Benef Microbes., 6, 369, 10.3920/BM2014.0069 · DOI
  35. Eaton, 2001, Molecular screening of Enterococcus virulence determinants and potential for genetic exchange between food and medical isolates, Appl Environ Microbiol., 67, 1628, 10.1128/AEM.67.4.1628-1635.2001 · DOI
  36. Sillanpää, 2013, Contribution of individual Ebp pilus subunits of Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF to pilus biogenesis, biofilm formation and urinary tract infection, PLoS ONE., 8, e68813, 10.1371/journal.pone.0068813 · DOI
  37. Qin, 2000, Quorum-sensing signal binding results in dimerization of TraR and its release from membranes into the cytoplasm, EMBO J., 19, 5212, 10.1093/emboj/19.19.5212 · DOI
  38. Koirala, 2015, Melting curve analysis of a groEL PCR fragment for the rapid genotyping of strains belonging to the Lactobacillus casei group of species, Microbiol Res., 173, 50, 10.1016/j.micres.2015.01.001 · DOI
  39. Adetoye, 2018, Characterization and anti-salmonella activities of lactic acid bacteria isolated from cattle faeces, BMC Microbiol, 18, 96, 10.1186/s12866-018-1248-y · DOI
  40. Li, 2019, Probiotics isolated from yaks improves the growth performance, antioxidant activity, and cytokines related to immunity and inflammation in mice, Microb Cell Fact., 18, 112, 10.1186/s12934-019-1161-6 · DOI
  41. Nami, 2015, Antimicrobial activity and the presence of virulence factors and bacteriocin structural genes in Enterococcus faecium CM33 isolated from ewe colostrum, Front Microbiol, 6, 782, 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00782 · DOI
  42. Wang, 2019, Toward rational selection criteria for selection of probiotics in pigs, Adv Appl Microbiol., 107, 83, 10.1016/bs.aambs.2019.03.003 · DOI
  43. Hsu, 2018, Probiotic characteristics and zearalenone-removal ability of a Bacillus licheniformis strain, PLoS ONE, 13, e0194866, 10.1371/journal.pone.0194866 · DOI
  44. Hamon, 2011, Comparative proteomic analysis of Lactobacillus plantarum for the identification of key proteins in bile tolerance, BMC Microbiol, 11, 63, 10.1186/1471-2180-11-63 · DOI
  45. Klose, 2014, Antibiotic resistances of intestinal lactobacilli isolated from wild boars, Vet Microbiol., 168, 240, 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.11.014 · DOI
  46. Valeriano, 2016, Carbohydrate-binding specificities of potential probiotic Lactobacillus strains in porcine jejunal (IPEC-J2) cells and porcine mucin, J Microbiol, 54, 510, 10.1007/s12275-016-6168-7 · DOI
  47. Sayan, 2018, Effect of Lactobacillus salivarius on growth performance, diarrhea incidence, fecal bacterial population and intestinal morphology of suckling pigs challenged with F4+ enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, Asian-Australas J Anim Sci, 31, 1308, 10.5713/ajas.17.0746 · DOI
  48. Scharek, 2005, Influence of a probiotic Enterococcus faecium strain on development of the immune system of sows and piglets, Vet Immunol Immunopathol, 105, 151, 10.1016/j.vetimm.2004.12.022 · DOI
  49. Lukic, 2014, Aggregation factor as an inhibitor of bacterial binding to gut mucosa, Microb Ecol, 68, 633, 10.1007/s00248-014-0426-1 · DOI
  50. Zhang, 2013, Biological characteristics and probiotic effect of Leuconostoc lactis strain isolated from the intestine of black porgy fish, Braz J Microbiol, 44, 685, 10.1590/S1517-83822013005000053 · DOI
  51. Goh, 2010, Functional roles of aggregation-promoting-like factor in stress tolerance and adherence of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM, Appl Environ Microbiol, 76, 5005, 10.1128/AEM.00030-10 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Iniguez-Palomares, 2011, Protein-carbohydrate interactions between Lactobacillus salivarius and pig mucins, J Anim Sci, 89, 3125, 10.2527/jas.2010-2996 · DOI
  53. Jose, 2015, Comparison of microbiological and probiotic characteristics of Lactobacilli isolates from dairy food products and animal rumen contents, Microorganisms, 3, 198, 10.3390/microorganisms3020198 · DOI
  54. Al Seraih, 2018, In silico and experimental data claiming safety aspects and beneficial attributes of the bacteriocinogenic strain Enterococcus faecalis B3A-B3B, Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins, 10, 456, 10.1007/s12602-017-9357-8 · DOI
  55. Arques, 2015, Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria in dairy products and gut: effect on pathogens, Biomed Res Int, 2015, 584183, 10.1155/2015/584183 · DOI
  56. Campana, 2017, Strain-specific probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria and their interference with human intestinal pathogens invasion, Gut Pathog, 9, 12, 10.1186/s13099-017-0162-4 · DOI
  57. Kumar, 2010, Putative probiotic Lactobacillus spp. from porcine gastrointestinal tract inhibit transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus and enteric bacterial pathogens, Trop Anim Health Prod, 42, 1855, 10.1007/s11250-010-9648-5 · DOI
  58. Lee, 2013, In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria against Clostridium difficile, Toxicol Res, 29, 99, 10.5487/TR.2013.29.2.099 · DOI
  59. Arena, 2018, Immunobiosis and probiosis:antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria with a focus on their antiviral and antifungal properties, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol., 102, 9949, 10.1007/s00253-018-9403-9 · DOI
  60. Drider, 2016, Bacteriocins: not only antibacterial agents, Probiot Antimicrob Proteins, 8, 177, 10.1007/s12602-016-9223-0 · DOI
  61. Kaur, 2017, Lactic acid bacteria isolated from yak milk show probiotic potential, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 101, 7635, 10.1007/s00253-017-8473-4 · DOI
  62. Zommiti, 2017, Probiotic characteristics of Lactobacillus curvatus DN317, a strain isolated from chicken ceca, Probiot Antimicrob Proteins, 9, 415, 10.1007/s12602-017-9301-y · DOI
  63. Guo, 2016, Probiotic properties of Enterococcus strains isolated from traditional naturally fermented cream in China, Microb Biotechnol, 9, 737, 10.1111/1751-7915.12306 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Li, M., Wang, Y., Cui, H., Li, Y., Sun, Y., & Qiu, H.-J.
Affiliations
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Sun, Yuan
  • Qiu, Hua-Ji
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2020-02-11
Volume
7
Pages
49-49
ISSN
2297-1769 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fvets.2020.00049
PMC
PMC7026679
OpenAlex
W3005788114
Cited by
179
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 4
FWCI
14.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Veterinary Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31802169)
  • China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2018M641565)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Aquaculture disease management and microbiota
Keywords
lactic acid bacteria, probiotics, wild boar, gastrointestinal tract, Lactobacillus mucosae, Lactobacillus salivarius, Enterococcus hirae, Enterococcus durans, Enterococcus faecium, bacterial adhesion, self-aggregation, co-aggregation, antibacterial activity, hemolytic activity, virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, feed additives, gut microbiota

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