Acquiring bifidobacteria species from formula-fed and breast-fed newborns: identifying, quantifying and creating an antibiogram

  1. Rajagopal Kammara
  2. Anagha Nellikka

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

After examining the Bifidobacterium spp. population in faeces samples from breast-fed and formula-fed infants, an antibiogram was created. The prevalence of Bifidobacterium spp. in faeces was determined using common bacterial growth media, including Man Rogos Sharpe (MRS), Brain Heart Infusion (BHI), Luria Bertani (LB) broth and Bifidobacteria agar. According to the findings, formula-fed babies had a low population of Bifidobacterium spp. in their stools while breast-fed babies had a high population. By using phylogenetic analysis of the 16S rRNA and xfp (xylose/fructose 6-phosphate phosphoketolase) genes, and RFLP mapping of Bifidobacterium isolates, it was possible to identify a new and unique Bifidobacterium species. The intensity of the reddish brown colour produced during the F6PPK (fructose 6-phosphate phosphoketolase) assay is an accurate indicator of the proportion of various bifidobacteria present. Bifidobacteria agar media produced the greatest amounts of bifidobacteria diversity and recovery. Small (SCV) and Big colony variations (BCV) were formed during growth on different media. The various antibiotic MIC values changed depending on the use of different media, growth circumstances, bile salt treatment and low pH. The findings of this study demonstrate that test conditions also impact the diversity of microbiological conditions that distinguish between resistant and susceptible bacteria.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000590.v3 on Access Microbiology
  2. Access Microbiology

    The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community. All reviewer comments were satisfactorily addressed.

  3. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000590.v2 on Access Microbiology
  4. Access Microbiology

    The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community. The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments.

  5. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    This is a very interesting manuscript focused on acquisition of bifidobacteria from newborns. Overall, the paper is well-written, with sound methodology and the potential for strong impact in the probiotics community. The presentation of results is clear and the literature analysis quite thorough. Some minor corrections: Line 20: give values and fold-change Line 22: media not mediums Line 23: how did they change? Line 158: 10^8 not 108 Line 201: HCl not Hcl Conclusions: explain how these findings can help medicine or the food industry.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Very good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Very good

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Strongly support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  6. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data The methods utilised seem appropriate overall. However there are many instances where more specific detail could be provided. 2. Presentation of results Results are presented appropriately for the most part. The graphs contain misspellings of B. catenulatum. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings The content of the paper needs to be reconsidered. At present, the manuscript seems to be trying to report several studies which could be reported as separate manuscripts (two or three). This is reflected in the title of the manuscript. 4. Literature analysis or discussion Literature analysis and discussion are difficult to follow. More clarity and focus is required. Dividing the current manuscript would provide the opportunity for more focus and depth. 5. Any other relevant comments There appears to be two conclusion subheadings. Please ensure the manuscript is proofread.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Poor

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Partially support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  7. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000590.v1 on Access Microbiology