↓ Skip to main content

Identification and Classification for the Lactobacillus casei Group

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
241 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
Identification and Classification for the Lactobacillus casei Group
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01974
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chien-Hsun Huang, Shiao-Wen Li, Lina Huang, Koichi Watanabe

Abstract

Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus paracasei, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus are phenotypically and genotypically closely related, and together comprise the L. casei group. Although the strains of this group are commercially valuable as probiotics, the taxonomic status and nomenclature of the L. casei group have long been contentious because of the difficulties in identifying these three species by using the most frequently used genotypic methodology of 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Long used as the gold standard for species classification, DNA-DNA hybridization is laborious, requires expert skills, and is difficult to use routinely in laboratories. Currently, genome-based comparisons, including average nucleotide identity (ANI) and digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH), are commonly applied to bacterial taxonomy as alternatives to the gold standard method for the demarcating phylogenetic relationships. To establish quick and accurate methods for identifying strains in the L. casei group at the species and subspecies levels, we developed species- and subspecies-specific identification methods based on housekeeping gene sequences and whole-cell matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) spectral pattern analysis. By phylogenetic analysis based on concatenated housekeeping gene sequences (dnaJ, dnaK, mutL, pheS, and yycH), 53 strains were separated into four clusters corresponding to the four species: L. casei, L. paracasei and L. rhamnosus, and Lactobacillus chiayiensis sp. nov. A multiplex minisequencing assay using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-specific primers based on the dnaK gene sequences and species-specific primers based on the mutL gene sequences provided high resolution that enabled the strains at the species level to be identified as L. casei, L. paracasei, and L. rhamnosus. By MALDI-TOF MS analysis coupled with an internal database and ClinProTools software, species- and subspecies-level L. casei group strains were identified based on reliable scores and species- and subspecies-specific MS peaks. The L. paracasei strains were distinguished clearly at the subspecies level based on subspecies-specific MS peaks. This article describes the rapid and accurate methods used for identification and classification of strains in the L. casei group based on housekeeping gene sequences and MALDI-TOF MS analysis as well as the novel speciation of this group including L. chiayiensis sp. nov. and 'Lactobacillus zeae' by genome-based methods.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 241 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 16%
Student > Master 23 10%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 5%
Other 10 4%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 105 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 111 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#4,448,251
of 24,129,125 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#4,466
of 27,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,225
of 337,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#207
of 719 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,129,125 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 337,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 719 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.