Cited by 22Probiotics and Fermented FoodsAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAquaculture disease management and microbiota

Probiotic Potential and Safety Assessment of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum cqf-43 and Whole-Genome Sequence Analysis

Open access
Liu, Baiheng, Zhong, Xiaoxia, Liu, Zhiyun, Guan, Xiaofeng, Wang, Qi, Qi, Renli, Zhou, Xiaorong, Huang, Jinxiu·2023·International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Abstract

This study reports the whole-genome sequence of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum cqf-43 isolated from healthy sow feces. Based on genomic analysis, we performed a comprehensive safety assessment of strain cqf-43, using both in vitro and in vivo experiments, and explored its probiotic potential. The total genome length measures 3,169,201 bp, boasting a GC content of 44.59%. Through phylogenetic analyses, leveraging both 16S rRNA gene and whole-genome sequences, we confidently categorize strain cqf-43 as a member of Lactiplantibacillus. Genome annotation using Prokka unveiled a total of 3141 genes, encompassing 2990 protein-coding sequences, 71 tRNAs, 16 rRNAs, and 1 tmRNA. Functional annotations derived from COG and KEGG databases highlighted a significant abundance of genes related to metabolism, with a notable emphasis on carbohydrate utilization. The genome also revealed the presence of prophage regions and CRISPR-Cas regions while lacking virulence and toxin genes. Screening for antibiotic resistance genes via the CARD database yielded no detectable transferable resistance genes, effectively eliminating the potential for harmful gene transfer. It is worth highlighting that the virulence factors identified via the VFDB database primarily contribute to bolstering pathogen resilience in hostile environments. This characteristic is particularly advantageous for probiotics. Furthermore, the genome is devoid of menacing genes such as hemolysin, gelatinase, and biogenic amine-producing genes. Our investigation also unveiled the presence of three unannotated secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters, as detected by the online tool antiSMASH, suggesting a great deal of unknown potential for this strain. Rigorous in vitro experiments confirmed tolerance of strain cqf-43 in the intestinal environment, its antimicrobial efficacy, sensitivity to antibiotics, absence of hemolysis and gelatinase activity, and its inability to produce biogenic amines. In addition, a 28-day oral toxicity test showed that the strain cqf-43 did not pose a health hazard in mice, further establishing it as a safe strain.

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/ijms242417570

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Numerous studies have proven the overall safety and effectiveness of S. boulardii and L. rhamnosus for humans.

    “The use of S. boulardii and L. rhamnosus in such patients is not prohibited, despite some cases of infection, as numerous studies have proven their overall safety and effectiveness for humans [82].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [82]

    The Introduction discusses the safety of L. plantarum and cautions that probiotic safety can vary by strain, especially for people with compromised immune systems. Searches for S. boulardii and L. rhamnosus found no passage in our copy establishing their overall safety or effectiveness in humans. (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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, B., Zhong, X., Liu, Z., Guan, X., Wang, Q., Qi, R., Zhou, X., & Huang, J.
Affiliations
  • Southwest University (CN)
  • Chongqing Academy of Animal Science (CN)
Corresponding author
Huang, Jinxiu
Venue
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-12-17
Volume
24
Issue
24
Pages
17570
ISSN
1422-0067 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389894774
Cited by
21
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3
FWCI
3.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Molecular Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Chongqing Research Institute of Performance Incentive and Guidance Project (cstc2021jxjl00018, CARS-35)
  • Modern Agricultural Industrial Technology Construction, Chongqing (cstc2021jxjl00018, CARS-35)
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
Lactobacillus plantarum, probiotic safety, whole genome sequencing, genome annotation, carbohydrate metabolism, prophages, CRISPR-Cas, antibiotic resistance genes, virulence factors, secondary metabolite gene clusters, antimicrobial activity, oral toxicity, hemolysis, gelatinase, biogenic amines
MeSH terms
Animals, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Female, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Swine, Genome, Bacterial, Sequence Analysis, Gelatinases, Probiotics, Mice

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