Cited by 84Probiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and healthInfant Nutrition and Health

Preliminary Evaluation of the Safety and Probiotic Potential of Akkermansia muciniphila DSM 22959 in Comparison with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG

Open access
Cozzolino, Autilia, Vergalito, Franca, Tremonte, Patrizio, Iorizzo, Massimo, Lombardi, Silvia J., Sorrentino, Elena, Luongo, Delia, Coppola, Raffaele +2 more·2020·Microorganisms

Abstract

In this study, for the first time, we examined some of the physico-chemical properties of the cell surface of Akkermansia muciniphila DSM 22959, comparing it with those of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG—one of the most extensively studied probiotic microorganisms. In particular, hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, co-aggregation, and biofilm formation were investigated. In addition, antibiotic susceptibility, co-culture, and antimicrobial activity of the two strains were compared. Hydrophobicity was evaluated using xylene and toluene, showing that A. muciniphila DSM 22959 possessed moderate hydrophobicity. A. muciniphila showed a faster and higher auto-aggregation ability than Lb. rhamnosus GG, but a lower aptitude in biofilm formation. In the co-aggregation test, the best performance was obtained by Lb. rhamnosus GG. Regarding the susceptibility to antibiotics, the differences between the two strains were remarkable, with A. muciniphila DSM 22959 showing resistance to half of the antibiotic tested. Interesting results were also obtained with regard to the stimulating effect of Lb. rhamnosus GG on the growth of A. muciniphila when co-cultured.

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/microorganisms8020189

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • The percentages of hydrophobicity and auto-aggregation found in this study are higher than those found in other studies with LAB species.

    “These percentages of hydrophobicity and auto-aggregation are higher than those found in other studies with LAB species [40,41].”

    From Probiotic and Antifungal Attributes of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolates from Naturally Fermented Brazilian Table Olives (2022) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 3.2 (page not provided) reports that one earlier study found lower hydrophobicity than the value measured here for L. rhamnosus GG, but two others found similar values. Section 3.3 (page not provided) reports that A. muciniphila aggregated more than L. rhamnosus GG, while the latter's aggregation was similar to an earlier result. These limited comparisons do not establish that both percentages in the citing study exceed those found in other studies of LAB species. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]Gorbach S. Doron S. Magro F. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. The microbiota in gastrointestinal pathophysiology: implications for human health, prebiotics, probiotics, and dysbiosis Floch M.H. Ringel Y. Walker W.A. Academic Press Salt Lake City, UT, USA 2017 chapter 7 79 88

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cozzolino, A., Vergalito, F., Tremonte, P., Iorizzo, M., Lombardi, S. J., Sorrentino, E., Luongo, D., Coppola, R., Di Marco, R., & Succi, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Molise (IT)
  • Institute of Biostructure and Bioimaging (IT)
  • Department of Medicine and Health Sciences “Vincenzo Tiberio”, University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
Corresponding author
Sorrentino, Elena
Venue
Microorganisms
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-01-30
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
189
ISSN
2076-2607 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3003710691
Cited by
84
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6
FWCI
6.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microorganisms (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi del Molise (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
Keywords
Akkermansia muciniphila, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, probiotic safety, cell surface hydrophobicity, self-aggregation, co-aggregation, biofilm formation, antibiotic susceptibility, antimicrobial activity, co-culture, strain comparison

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