Lactobacillus rhamnosus AD3 as a promising alternative for probiotic products
Open accessAbstract
Lactobacillus strains dominate the vaginal habitat and they are associated with a lower risk of genital infections. In addition, they contribute to the conservation of the vaginal microbiota by producing postbiotic agents. Previous studies have shown that their predominance involves antimicrobial activity against urogenital pathologies. In this context, probiotics may improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the probiotic properties of lactobacilli strains of vaginal origin using a multidisciplinary approach. For this purpose, safety criteria, ability to resist at low pH and bile salts, antimicrobial activity, ability to produce biofilm, capacity to produce hydrogen peroxide and more importantly, auto-aggregation, co-aggregation (with Candida spp.) and adhesion to human cells were evaluated. The strains belonged to the species of L. crispatus, L. gasseri, L. rhamnosus and L. delbruckii. Among these, a strain of L. rhamnosus named AD3 showed the best probiotic properties. As probiotics are already in use in many clinical practice and there are no major safety concerns, L. rhamnosus AD3 showed promise in becoming a prevention and complementary treatment option for urogenital diseases. Indeed, these results suggest that strain L. rhamnosus AD3 is non-pathogenic and likely to be safe for human consumption. This study revealed the great amensalistic properties of a new L. rhamnosus strain which can aim to be used as probiotic in pharmaceutical applications.
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
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?
Previous studies have reported that the coaggregation ability of probiotic Lactobacillus strains with Candida species varied depending on the strain.
“Previous studies have reported that the coaggregation ability of probiotic Lactobacillus strains with Candida species varied depending on the strain, however, most studies have only examined intestinal and vaginal probiotic Lactobacillus strains.7, 8, 9”
From Aggregation and adhesion ability of various probiotic strains and Candida species: An in vitro study (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
Most studies have only examined intestinal and vaginal probiotic Lactobacillus strains, and there have been very few studies relating to oral probiotic strains.
“however, most studies have only examined intestinal and vaginal probiotic Lactobacillus strains.7, 8, 9 There have been very few studies relating to oral probiotic strains.10”
From Aggregation and adhesion ability of various probiotic strains and Candida species: An in vitro study (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
Citation 10 is attached to the statement that very few studies concern oral probiotic strains. The Introduction and Materials and Methods discuss vaginal strains and oral administration, but neither addresses how many studies have examined strains from the oral cavity. Searches for oral probiotic strains and comparisons with intestinal and vaginal strains found no such assessment. (LLM, conf=0.76)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Stivala, A., Carota, G., Fuochi, V., & Furneri, P. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Catania (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Fuochi, Virginia
- Venue
- Biomolecules
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-01-13
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94
- ISSN
- 2218-273X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7828318
- OpenAlex
- W3119220868
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 3.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Biomolecules (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Università di Catania (2016-2018)
- 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
- probiotics, vaginal microbiota, Lactobacillus crispatus, Lactobacillus gasseri, antimicrobial activity, bile salt tolerance, hydrogen peroxide production, biofilm formation, self-aggregation, cell adhesion, genitourinary diseases, probiotic safety, amensalism
- MeSH terms
- Cell Adhesion, Drug Resistance, Microbial, Female, Humans, Hydrogen Peroxide, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Vagina, Biofilms, Probiotics, Cell Line, Tumor, Microbial Viability, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus
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
