| Title |
Antiviral potentials of Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus amylovorus, and Enterococcus hirae against selected Enterovirus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Folia Microbiologica, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12223-018-0648-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abidemi Anota Sunmola, Omonike O. Ogbole, Temitope O. C. Faleye, Adewale Adetoye, Johnson A. Adeniji, Funmilola A. Ayeni |
| Abstract |
Enteroviruses have been associated with a host of clinical presentations including acute flaccid paralysis (AFP). The site of primary replication for most enteroviruses is the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) may confer protection in the GIT against them. This study therefore investigates the antiviral potential of some selected lactic acid bacteria against enterovirus isolates recovered from AFP cases. The antiviral activities of Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus amylovorus, and Enterococcus hirae in broth culture, their cell-free supernatant (CFS), and bacterial cell pellets were assayed against Echovirus 7 (E7), E13, and E19 in a pre- and post-treatment approach using cytopathic effect (CPE) and cell viability (MTT) assay. The tested Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus amylovorus, and Enterococcus hirae strains have good antiviral properties against E7 and E19 but not against E13. Lactobacillus amylovorus AA099 shows the highest activity against E19. The pre-treatment approach displays better antiviral activities compared to post-treatment approach. The LAB in broth suspension have better antiviral activities than their corresponding CFS and bacterial pellet. Lactic acid bacteria used in this study have the potential as antiviral agents. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 14% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
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 30 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,535,139
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from Folia Microbiologica
#610
of 750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,186
of 342,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Folia Microbiologica
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 750 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 342,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.