ArticleArchives of microbiology2026
In vitro evaluation of Limosilactobacillus and Enterococcus isolates for inhibitory activity against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus.
Article in Archives of microbiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Emerging viral pathogens such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) remain a major threat to the swine industry, causing severe economic losses due to limited protection from current vaccines. In this study, the MARC-145 cell line was utilized as an in vitro infection model to screen lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains with antiviral potential against PRRSV. Forty-five LAB isolates were obtained from fecal samples of nursing piglets, and after removing cytotoxic strains, the antiviral properties of the remaining 25 isolates were assessed. Among the tested strains, the intracellular fraction of HH69 provided the strongest prophylactic effect, whereas HH09 displayed the highest direct-inhibitory effect. Both HH09 and HH32-1 produced notable therapeutic effects. In the prophylactic assay, HH69 significantly suppressed PRRSV-M transcription and reduced the expression of proinflammatory cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-8 and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), as well as anti-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-10 and transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1), while enhancing interferon-stimulated gene 15 (ISG15) expression in MARC-145 cells. In the direct-inhibitory assay, HH09 significantly reduced PRRSV-M and decreased IL-6, IL-8, TGF-β1, and TNF-α. In the therapeutic assay, HH09 significantly reduced PRRSV-M and decreased IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and TGF-β1, whereas HH32-1 decreased PRRSV-M, IL-8, TGF-β1, and TNF-α while elevating the antiviral enzyme 2’-5’-oligoadenylate synthetase 1 (OAS1). Microscopic observations, biochemical characteristics, and phylogenetic analyses identified HH09 as Limosilactobacillus reuteri, HH32-1 as Enterococcus faecium, and HH69 as Enterococcus faecalis. These findings indicate that HH09, HH32-1, and HH69 may serve as antiviral agents against PRRSV by modulating cytokine and ISG responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41863606What 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.