Cited by 12Probiotics and Fermented FoodsAgricultural safety and regulationsGut microbiota and health

Genome- and Toxicology-Based Safety Assessment of Probiotic Akkermansia muciniphila ONE Isolated from Humans

Open access
Lv, Na, Wang, Caiping, Zhou, Hongtao, Ma, Xin, Yu, Xueping, Ren, Dayong·2024·Foods

Abstract

In this study, the genome of Akkermansia muciniphila ONE (designated AKK ONE) was sequenced, assembled, and analyzed. In addition, the safety of this strain was further evaluated by toxicological studies. The results showed that the AKK ONE genome is contained on a single chromosome with a total length of 2,817,524 bp and an average GC content of 55.48%. In total, 2411, 1131, 1168, 1745, and 1402 genes were annotated to the NR, GO, KEGG, COG, and SwissProt database, respectively. Potential resistance genes, adeF, tetW, ANT(3″)-IIa, and aadA1 were detected. AKK ONE was sensitive to ampicillin, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, meropenem, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol and resistant to moxifloxacin. No potential virulence-related genes were detected. The PathogenFinder database analysis showed that AKK ONE was a non-potential human pathogen. This strain had good gastroenteric fluid tolerance and a weak ability to colonize the gut. No test item-related adverse effects were observed in the acute and subchronic toxicity test. AKK ONE did not display mutagenic activity either. This strain did not change the hematological and clinical biochemical parameters of mice. The weights of the organs were not affected by AKK ONE treatment. These results support that AKK ONE is safe for use as a probiotic at a dose of 8.28 × 109 CFU/kg bw/day.

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 · 10.3390/foods13131979

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Genomic risk screening can be accelerated using AI algorithms such as DeepMicro, CARD, ResFinder, and machine-learning models identifying specific tRNAs that distinguish safe probiotics from dangerous intestinal pathogens.

    “Thus, genomic risk screening can be accelerated through rapid identification using artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms (in particular, DeepMicro, which analyzes sequencing data at high speed to identify bacterial species and potential pathogens with greater speed and accuracy than cultivation-based methods); identification of ARG and virulence detection (for example, using a big data platform”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [165]

    The Introduction describes genome-based safety assessment as fast, and Methods §2.3 reports using CARD and ResFinder to predict resistance genes. The paper does not describe DeepMicro, AI-accelerated screening, or machine-learning models that use specific tRNAs to distinguish probiotics from intestinal pathogens. It also cautions in the Introduction that genome-based safety assessment alone is not very reliable. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lv, N., Wang, C., Zhou, H., Ma, X., Yu, X., & Ren, D.
Affiliations
  • Jilin Agricultural University (CN)
  • East China University of Science and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Ren, Dayong
Venue
Foods
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-06-24
Volume
13
Issue
13
Pages
1979
ISSN
2304-8158 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399977591
Cited by
12
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Foods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (32172189, 20200402068NC)
  • key R&D project of Jilin Provincial Department of Science and Technology (32172189, 20200402068NC)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
Akkermansia muciniphila, probiotic safety, antimicrobial resistance genes, antibiotic susceptibility, virulence genes, intestinal colonization, acute toxicity, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity

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