↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Lactobacillus coryniformis CECT5711 strain as a coadjuvant in a vaccination process: a randomised clinical trial in healthy adults

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition & Metabolism, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Evaluation of Lactobacillus coryniformis CECT5711 strain as a coadjuvant in a vaccination process: a randomised clinical trial in healthy adults
Published in
Nutrition & Metabolism, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12986-016-0154-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noemí Redondo, Esther Nova, Alina Gheorghe, Ligia Esperanza Díaz, Aurora Hernández, Ascensión Marcos

Abstract

Although the effects of probiotics on the immune system have been extensively evaluated under disease states, their role in healthy situations remains unclear, since changes are hardly expected under immunological homeostasis. EFSA indicates that vaccination protocols could be used to evaluate the potential role of probiotics to improve the immune response against antigen challenges. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus coryniformis CECT5711 (Lc) on the specific immunity of healthy volunteers undergoing vaccination with Hepatitis A virus (HAV). One hundred twenty-three healthy adults were randomised into three groups to follow a 6-week (wk) intervention and all received an intramuscular HAV vaccine 2 weeks after starting the intervention: 1) PRO1 received Lc for 2weeks (1 capsule/day; 3 × 10(9) CFU/capsule) and placebo capsules after vaccination; 2) PRO2 received a daily capsule of Lc (3 × 10(9) cfu/day) before and after the challenge; 3) Control group (C) received a daily placebo capsule before and after the vaccine. Blood samples were collected at the beginning (visit 1; V1) and after 2 (V2) and 6 weeks (V3) of the intervention. At each visit, lymphocyte subset counts and cytokine levels were analysed. Specific HAV antibodies were analysed at V1 and V3. To evaluate differences between groups, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test were used regarding lymphocyte subset counts and specific HAV antibodies production, and Friedman test of related samples and Kendall concordance coefficient for cytokines production. Chi square test was used to analyse seroconversion rates. Specific HAV antibodies were significantly higher in PRO1 (50.54 ± 29.57) compared to C (36.23 ± 16.45) (P = 0.017) and showed an intermediate value in PRO2 (41.61 ± 15.74). Seroconversion rates were similar in the three groups (97.3, 92.3 and 97.4% in C, PRO1 and PRO2 respectively). Memory T-helper lymphocytes increased in V3 vs. V1 (P = 0.032) in PRO2. No differences were found in cytokine concentrations. Mixed results have been found regarding the usefulness of Lc supplementation to increase the antigen-specific antibody response to an immune challenge. Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT Number 2016-000183-42. Registered 19 January 2016. Retrospectively registered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 21 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 May 2022.
All research outputs
#3,819,144
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition & Metabolism
#329
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,370
of 421,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition & Metabolism
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 421,582 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 61% of its contemporaries.