Cited by 4Antibiotic Resistance in BacteriaProbiotics and Fermented FoodsAntibiotic Use and Resistance

Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of probiotic strains in the context of antimicrobial resistance

Open access
Kerek, Ádám, Palkovicsné Pézsa, Nikolett, Kaszab, Eszter, Jerzsele, Ákos, Farkas, Orsolya·2025·Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Abstract

Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged as a critical global public health concern, particularly with regard to microorganisms used as probiotics in both veterinary and human healthcare. The aim of this study was to characterize the phenotypic and genotypic resistance profiles of several industrially applied probiotic bacterial strains, with special emphasis on the presence of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). Methods: Five strains, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus subtilis, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and Pediococcus acidilactici were analyzed. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing revealed resistance in multiple strains to clinically relevant antibiotics such as gentamicin, amoxicillin, tylosin, and florfenicol. Results: Whole-genome sequencing identified 27 distinct ARGs, primarily associated with efflux pumps and target protection or modification mechanisms. The Bacillus licheniformis strain harbored the most diverse ARG profile, whereas no resistance genes were detected in Pediococcus acidilactici. Discussion: These findings highlight the necessity of integrating phenotypic and genotypic assessments for the safe application of probiotic strains in animals and potentially human use.

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.2025.1684650

Cites

77 of 77 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]Kovács D Palkovicsné Pézsa N Farkas O Jerzsele Á. Usage of antibiotic alternatives in pig farming: literature review. Magyar Állatorvosok Lapja. (2021) 143: 281– 2.

Authors
Kerek, Á., Palkovicsné Pézsa, N., Kaszab, E., Jerzsele, Á., & Farkas, O.
Affiliations
  • University of Veterinary Medicine (HU)
  • University of Debrecen (HU)
Corresponding author
Kerek, Ádám
Venue
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Published
2025-10-03
Volume
12
Pages
1684650-1684650
ISSN
2297-1769 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414799154
Cited by
4
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Veterinary Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Nemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal (RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00001)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
Keywords
probiotic bacteria, antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial resistance genes, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus subtilis, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Pediococcus acidilactici, efflux pumps, minimum inhibitory concentration, gentamicin, amoxicillin, tylosin, florfenicol, probiotic safety

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