| Title |
Evaluation of enterococci for potential probiotic utilization in dogs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Folia Microbiologica, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12223-018-0640-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ivana Kubašová, Andrea Lauková, Ľudmila Hamarová, Peter Pristaš, Viola Strompfová |
| Abstract |
Some strains of the genus Enterococcus are effective probiotic bacteria if they meet safety and probiotic criteria. In our study, 17 canine enterococci previously selected from a group of 160 isolates based on safety criteria were screened for some functional properties relevant to their use as probiotics. The results of antimicrobial resistance testing showed sensitivity of eleven strains to EFSA recommended antimicrobials. In contrast, the most frequent resistance was observed for cefotaxim (15/17) and oxacillin (13/17). PCR detection of resistance genes (vanA, vanB, vanC, tetM, tetL, ermB, and mefA) revealed the presence of mefA gene in five Enterococcus faecium strains and vanA gene in one strain. The production of enzymes commonly associated with intestinal diseases was in general rare (β-glucosidase 2/17, α-chymotrypsin 1/17, N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase 0/17, and β-glucuronidase 0/17). The measurement of strain survival rate (%) under the conditions simulating gastric (pH 2.5) and bile juices (0.3% bile) showed considerable differences between strains (< 0.01 to 4.7% after 90 min for gastric juices, 48.0 to 254.0% after 180 min for bile). The concentration of produced L-lactic acid ranged between 83.1 to 119.3 mmol/L after 48 h cultivation depending on the strain. All strains fermented 16 out of 49 different carbohydrates (range from 17 to 23/49). Antimicrobial activity was recorded for two strains against some species of Listeria sp. and Enterococcus sp. Finally, two E. faecium candidates (IK25 and D7) were selected for testing in dogs, and hereafter they could possibly extend the currently limited range of beneficial bacteria of canine origin used as a dietary supplement for dogs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 9 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,291,775
of 23,493,900 outputs
Outputs from Folia Microbiologica
#515
of 753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,882
of 334,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Folia Microbiologica
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,493,900 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 753 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.