ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and preliminary evaluation of real-time PCR assays for six lactic acid bacteria.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study developed new real-time PCR assays for six lactic acid bacteria (LAB): Ligilactobacillus agilis, Limosilactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus johnsonii, Ligilactobacillus salivarius, Pediococcus pentosaceus, and Weissella cibaria for their application in the food industry. For each target bacterium, a novel primer/probe set was designed in a conserved and species-specific genomic region, with proper length (13 ~ 30nt), Tm (probes: 68 ~ 70℃; primers: 58 ~ 60℃), GC content (30 ~ 80%), and amplicon length (50 ~ 150 bp). The Gibbs free energy (ΔG, an indicator for stability of secondary structures) of potential hairpins, self-dimers, and cross-dimers of the primers and probes adhered largely to the recommended values with minor deviations. BLAST analysis verified the conservation and specificity of each target sequence. After establishing the reaction mixture and the thermal procedure, each new assay was preliminarily evaluated in inclusivity, specificity, amplification efficiency, and precision. All tested samples of each target bacterium generated positive results. All tested non-target bacterial samples yielded negative results. Amplification efficiency of each assay, measured using 10-fold serial dilutions of a positive sample, was 95 ~ 100%. Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of each assay generated relative standard deviations (RSDs) < 2%. Collectively, these newly developed assays predictably have high inclusivity, specificity, amplification efficiency, and precision, which need more comprehensive validation before industrial application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.