2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.12.037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Isolation and characterization of spontaneous phage-resistant mutants of Lactobacillus paracasei

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We found an SC method isolation efficiency of 57.6%, while the AP method efficiency was much lower (25.0%). The higher efficiency of the SC method has been reported before though with similar, smaller or larger differences ( Guglielmotti et al, 2006 ; Binetti et al, 2007 ; Sunthornthummas et al, 2019 ). The lower AP efficiency (especially at low MOIs) could be explained by a low selection pressure for phage resistance.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We found an SC method isolation efficiency of 57.6%, while the AP method efficiency was much lower (25.0%). The higher efficiency of the SC method has been reported before though with similar, smaller or larger differences ( Guglielmotti et al, 2006 ; Binetti et al, 2007 ; Sunthornthummas et al, 2019 ). The lower AP efficiency (especially at low MOIs) could be explained by a low selection pressure for phage resistance.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Using a combined approach of the SC and AP method resulted in an overall mutant isolation efficiency of ∼41%. Previous studies using this approach found an isolation efficiency of true resistant Lactobacillus paracasei isolates of 56% ( Sunthornthummas et al, 2019 ) and an average isolation efficiency of 36.5% (ranging between 29.5 and 50%) of true resistant Lactobacillus delbrueckii isolates ( Guglielmotti et al, 2006 ). We found an SC method isolation efficiency of 57.6%, while the AP method efficiency was much lower (25.0%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%