↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Probiotic Properties and Safety of Enterococcus faecium Isolated From Artisanal Tunisian Meat “Dried Ossban”

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
0 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of Probiotic Properties and Safety of Enterococcus faecium Isolated From Artisanal Tunisian Meat “Dried Ossban”
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01685
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed Zommiti, Mélyssa Cambronel, Olivier Maillot, Magalie Barreau, Khaled Sebei, Marc Feuilloley, Mounir Ferchichi, Nathalie Connil

Abstract

Enterococcus faecium strains were isolated from an original biotope, artisanal dried Tunisian meat "Dried Ossban," and evaluated for safety and capacity as probiotics. Gram-positive, catalase negative, and bacteriocin-producing bacteria were screened using selective microbiological media. All isolates were identified by phenotypic and molecular tools. Five E. faecium strains (MZF1, MZF2, MZF3, MZF4, and MZF5) were selected and further assessed for their probiotic properties. They were found to be resistant to the physiological concentrations of bile salts, and the harsh conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, and showed autoaggregation and adhesion ability. All these isolates possess at least one enterocin and could efficiently inhibit the growth of Listeria innocua HPB13. The analysis of their safety profile revealed for almost all the strains the absence of cytotoxicity and virulence determinants, and susceptibility to clinically important antibiotics such as vancomycin. These data suggest that these bacteria, isolated from "Dried Ossban," do not present a risk to human health, and may be considered as interesting candidates for future use as probiotics and bioprotective cultures for application in the food and/or feed industries.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 34 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 39 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 October 2022.
All research outputs
#20,530,891
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,866
of 25,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,629
of 330,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#645
of 751 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 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 25,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. 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 330,721 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 751 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.