Evidence mapPaperPMID 39789429Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2025

In vitro characterization of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria from wild and domestic pigs: probiotic potential for post-weaning piglets.

Katerina Kavanova, Iveta Kostovova, Monika Moravkova, Tereza Kubasova, Magdalena Crhanova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Frontiers in immunology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katerina KavanovaVeterinary Research Institute, Hudcova 296/70, Brno, 621 00, Czech Republic. katerina.kavanova@vri.cz.ORCID 0009-0007-5018-939X
Iveta KostovovaVeterinary Research Institute, Hudcova 296/70, Brno, 621 00, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-6375-7463
Monika MoravkovaVeterinary Research Institute, Hudcova 296/70, Brno, 621 00, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-4864-4273
Tereza KubasovaVeterinary Research Institute, Hudcova 296/70, Brno, 621 00, Czech Republic.
Magdalena CrhanovaVeterinary Research Institute, Hudcova 296/70, Brno, 621 00, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-9537-8548

Funding

Ministerstvo Zemědělství QL24010234
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastrointestinal diseases in weaned piglets are a frequent cause of high morbidity and mortality in domestic pigs. The use of antibiotics is problematic due to increasing antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations, for which reason the use of suitable probiotics is highly recommended to maintain animal health and welfare.

resultsIn this study, 57 strains of biologically safe lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and bifidobacteria originating from the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of pigs were identified and characterized in terms of their probiotic properties for potential use in weaned piglets. These strains were divided into two sets based on their origin - from the GIT of wild boars (n = 41) and from the GIT of domestic pigs (n = 16). Strains obtained from wild boars exhibited greater taxonomic diversity compared to isolates from domestic pigs. While searching for coding sequences (CDS) encoding bacteriocins and bile salt hydrolases (BSH), no significant difference was detected between the two tested groups. On the other hand, CDS encoding adhesinlike factors were more frequent in the dataset isolated from wild boars than in the dataset obtained from domestic pigs. Moreover, more CDS encoding carbohydrateactive enzymes (CAZymes) were carried in the genomes of strains obtained from wild boars. Utilization of important selected carbohydrate substrates, such as starch, D-raffinose, D-mannose, Dcellobiose and gentiobiose, was confirmed by API testing. Antimicrobial activity against at least one of the five tested pathogens was found in 51% of wild boar strains but in none of the isolates from domestic pigs.

conclusionThis suggests that the intestinal microbiota of wild boars could serve as a promising source of probiotics for domestic pigs.

Indexed as

BifidobacteriumLactobacillalesProbioticsWeaningAmidohydrolasesAnimalsAnimals, WildBacteriocinsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGastrointestinal TractPhylogenySus scrofaSwineAmidohydrolasesBacteriocinscholoylglycine hydrolaseAntimicrobial activityCarbohydrate utilizationCAZymesDomestic pigsProbioticsWild boars

Identifiers

PMID39789429
PMCPMC11715547

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.