Application of genotypic and phenotypic analyses to commercial probiotic strain identity and relatedness
Journal of Applied Microbiology, ISSN: 1364-5072, Vol: 97, Issue: 5, Page: 1095-1104
2004
- 40Citations
- 1,476Usage
- 35Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations40
- Citation Indexes40
- 40
- CrossRef29
- Usage1,476
- Downloads1,387
- 1,002
- Abstract Views89
- Captures35
- Readers35
- 35
Article Description
Aims: The objective of this study was to generate strain-specific genomic patterns of a bank of 67 commercial and reference probiotic strains, with a focus on probiotic lactobacilli. Methods and Results: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) was used as the primary method for strain differentiation. This method was compared with carbohydrate fermentation analysis. To supplement visual comparison, PFGE patterns were analysed quantitatively by cluster analysis using unweighted pair group method with arithmetic averages. SmaI, NotI and XbaI were found to effectively generate clear and easy-to-interpret PFGE patterns of a range of probiotic strains. Some probiotic strains from different sources shared highly similar PFGE patterns. Conclusions: Results document the value of genotypic strain identification methods, combined with phenotypic methods, for determining probiotic strain identity and relatedness. No correlation was found between relatedness determined by carbohydrate fermentation profiles alone compared with PFGE analysis alone. Some commercial strains are probably derived from similar sources. Significance and Impact of the Study: This approach is valuable to the probiotic industry to develop commercial strain identification patterns, to provide quality control of strain manufacturing production runs, to track use of protected strains and to determine the relatedness among different research and commercial probiotic strains.
Bibliographic Details
https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bio_fac/45; http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bio_fac/45; https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bio_fac/316
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=6344272376&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02400.x; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15479427; https://academic.oup.com/jambio/article/97/5/1095/6722463; https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bio_fac/45; https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=bio_fac; http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bio_fac/45; http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=bio_fac; https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bio_fac/316; https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1321&context=bio_fac
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know