A critical evaluation of the factors affecting the survival and persistence of beneficial bacteria in healthy adults
äºBeneficial MicrobesSearch for other papers by L. Morelli in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by P. Pellegrino in
Current site
Google Scholar
The efficacy of a probiotic depends on its ability to survive and persist in the digestive tract. Regulatory agencies around the world recommend minimum dosages in order for a product to be termed a probiotic. However, the effect of dosage on the survival of the bacteria in the gut â the primary objective of probiotic administration â has not been critically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to assess the available data on the survival rate, during gastrointestinal transit, of probiotic bacteria that were orally administered to healthy adults. We also evaluated the persistence of the administered strain(s) after discontinuation of treatment and the potential role played by the food matrix in which probiotics have been administered. From a regulatory perspective, the profile of the target population is key to establishing the efficacy of probiotics. Therefore, we focussed on subjects without disease conditions. We evaluated 17 studies of single strains and 13 studies of multi-strain products, which reported survival and persistence outcomes. Persistence in the gut and recovery from stool were strain dependent. When the administered dose was higher than 1010 cfu/day, the probiotic could be recovered from stool regardless of the strain used. Treatment duration did not affect faecal recovery. Thus, dosage recommendations for probiotics by regulatory agencies are lower than that required for a strain to survive, persist and be efficacious in the gut.
-
Ahmed, M., Prasad, J., Gill, H., Stevenson, L. and Gopal, P., 2007. Impact of consumption of different levels of Bifidobacterium lactis HN019 on the intestinal microflora of elderly human subjects. Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging 11: 26-31.
'Impact of consumption of different levels of Bifidobacterium lactis HN019 on the intestinal microflora of elderly human subjects ' () 11 Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging : 26 -31.
-
Alander, M., Satokari, R., Korpela, R., Saxelin, M., Vilpponen-Salmela, T., Mattila-Sandholm, T. and Von Wright, A., 1999. Persistence of colonization of human colonic mucosa by a probiotic strain, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, after oral consumption. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65: 351-354. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.65.1.351-354.1999
-
Arioli, S., Koirala, R., Taverniti, V., Fiore, W. and Guglielmetti, S., 2018. Quantitative recovery of viable Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-1572 (L. casei DG(R)) after gastrointestinal passage in healthy adults. Frontiers in Microbiology 9: 1720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01720
-
CIRS, 2019. Current situation of regulations and application requirements on probiotic health food in China. CIRS, Hangzhou, China. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/xwt3wfu6
-
De Champs, C., Maroncle, N., Balestrino, D., Rich, C. and Forestier, C., 2003. Persistence of colonization of intestinal mucosa by a probiotic strain, Lactobacillus casei subsp. rhamnosus Lcr35, after oral consumption. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 41: 1270-1273. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.41.3.1270-1273.2003
-
Dommels, Y.E., Kemperman, R.A., Zebregs, Y.E., Draaisma, R.B., Jol, A., Wolvers, D.A., Vaughan, E.E. and Albers, R., 2009. Survival of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in the human gastrointestinal tract with daily consumption of a low-fat probiotic spread. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 75: 6198-6204. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01054-09
-
Donnet-Hughes, A., Rochat, F., Serrant, P., Aeschlimann, J.M. and Schiffrin, E.J., 1999. Modulation of nonspecific mechanisms of defense by lactic acid bacteria: effective dose. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 863-869. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75304-X
-
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2016. Outcome of a public consultation of the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) on the draft general scientific guidance for stakeholders on health claim applications. EFSA Supporting Publications 13(1): 986E. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-986
-
Food and Agriculture Organisation / World Health Organisation (FAO/WHO), 2001. Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on evaluation of health and nutritional properties of probiotics in food including powder milk with live lactic acid bacteria. FAO/WHO, Rome/Geneva, Italy/Switzerland. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a0512e/a0512e.pdf
-
Food and Agriculture Organisation / World Health Organisation (FAO/WHO), 2002. Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. FAO/WHO, Rome/Geneva, Italy/Switzerland. Available at: https://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/en/probiotic_guidelines.pdf
-
Ghelardi, E., Celandroni, F., Salvetti, S., Gueye, S.A., Lupetti, A. and Senesi, S., 2015. Survival and persistence of Bacillus clausii in the human gastrointestinal tract following oral administration as spore-based probiotic formulation. Journal of Applied Microbiology 119: 552-559. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12848
-
Hanifi, A., Culpepper, T., Mai, V., Anand, A., Ford, A.L., Ukhanova, M., Christman, M., Tompkins, T.A. and Dahl, W.J., 2015. Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis R0179 on gastrointestinal viability and general wellness: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adults. Beneficial Microbes 6: 19-27. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2014.0031
-
Hill, C., Guarner, F., Reid, G., Gibson, G.R., Merenstein, D.J., Pot, B., Morelli, L., Canani, R.B., Flint, H.J., Salminen, S., Calder, P.C. and Sanders, M.E., 2014. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Reviews: Gastroenterology and Hepatology 11: 506-514. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66
-
Hutt, P., Koll, P., Stsepetova, J., Alvarez, B., Mandar, R., Krogh-Andersen, K., Marcotte, H., Hammarstrom, L. and Mikelsaar, M., 2011. Safety and persistence of orally administered human Lactobacillus sp. strains in healthy adults. Beneficial Microbes 2: 79-90. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2010.0023
-
Jacobsen, C.N., Rosenfeldt Nielsen, V., Hayford, A.E., Moller, P.L., Michaelsen, K.F., Paerregaard, A., Sandstrom, B., Tvede, M. and Jakobsen, M., 1999. Screening of probiotic activities of forty-seven strains of Lactobacillus spp. by in vitro techniques and evaluation of the colonization ability of five selected strains in humans. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65: 4949-4956. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.65.11.4949-4956.1999
-
Khine, W.W.T., Ang, X.J., Chan, Y.S., Lee, W.Q., Quek, S.Y., Tan, S.H., Teo, H.T.A., Teo, J.K.B., Lau, Q.C. and Lee, Y.K., 2019. Recovery of Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota (LcS) from faeces of healthy Singapore adults after intake of fermented milk. Beneficial Microbes 10: 721-728. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2018.0173
-
Klingberg, T.D. and Budde, B.B., 2006. The survival and persistence in the human gastrointestinal tract of five potential probiotic lactobacilli consumed as freeze-dried cultures or as probiotic sausage. International Journal of Food Microbiology 109: 157-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.01.014
-
Larsen, C.N., Nielsen, S., Kaestel, P., Brockmann, E., Bennedsen, M., Christensen, H.R., Eskesen, D.C., Jacobsen, B.L. and Michaelsen, K.F., 2006. Dose-response study of probiotic bacteria Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 and Lactobacillus paracasei subsp paracasei CRL-341 in healthy young adults. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 60: 1284-1293. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602450
-
Lund, B., Adamsson, I. and Edlund, C., 2002. Gastrointestinal transit survival of an Enterococcus faecium probiotic strain administered with or without vancomycin. International Journal of Food Microbiology 77: 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(02)00047-8
-
Mai, V., Waugh, S., Byrd, D., Simpson, D. and Ukhanova, M., 2017. Novel encapsulation improves recovery of probiotic strains in fecal samples of human volunteers. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 101: 1419-1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7915-8
-
Matto, J., Fonden, R., Tolvanen, T., Von Wright, A., Vilpponen-Salmela, T., Satokari, R. and Saarela, M., 2006. Intestinal survival and persistence of probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains administered in triple-strain yoghurt. International Dairy Journal 16: 1174-1180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.10.007
-
Ministero della Salute, 2013. Guidelines on probiotics and prebiotics. Ministero della Salute, Rome, Italy. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/234ecjfa
-
Ouwehand, A.C., 2017. A review of dose-responses of probiotics in human studies. Beneficial Microbes 8: 143-151. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2016.0140
-
Plaza-Diaz, J., Gomez-Llorente, C., Campana-Martin, L., Matencio, E., Ortuno, I., Martinez-Silla, R., Gomez-Gallego, C., Periago, M.J., Ros, G., Chenoll, E., Genoves, S., Casinos, B., Silva, A., Corella, D., Portoles, O., Romero, F., Ramon, D., Perez de la Cruz, A., Gil, A. and Fontana, L., 2013. Safety and immunomodulatory effects of three probiotic strains isolated from the feces of breast-fed infants in healthy adults: SETOPROB study. PLoS ONE 8: e78111. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078111
-
Prilassnig, M., Wenisch, C., Daxboeck, F. and Feierl, G., 2007. Are probiotics detectable in human feces after oral uptake by healthy volunteers? Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 119: 456-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-007-0808-1
-
Rattanaprasert, M., Roos, S., Hutkins, R.W. and Walter, J., 2014. Quantitative evaluation of synbiotic strategies to improve persistence and metabolic activity of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in the human gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Functional Foods 10: 85-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2014.05.017
-
Rochet, V., Rigottier-Gois, L., Levenez, F., Cadiou, J., Marteau, P., Bresson, J.L., Goupil-Feillerat, N. and Dore, J., 2008. Modulation of Lactobacillus casei in ileal and fecal samples from healthy volunteers after consumption of a fermented milk containing Lactobacillus casei DN-114 001Rif. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 54: 660-667. https://doi.org/10.1139/w08-050
-
Sánchez, B., Delgado, S., Blanco-MÃguez, A., Lourenço, A., Gueimonde, M. and Margolles, A., 2017. Probiotics, gut microbiota, and their influence on host health and disease. Molecular Nutrition and Food Research 61: 1600240. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201600240
-
Sanders, M.E., Merenstein, D.J., Reid, G., Gibson, G.R. and Rastall, R.A., 2019. Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: from biology to the clinic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology 16: 605-616. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-019-0173-3
-
Saxelin, M., Lassig, A., Karjalainen, H., Tynkkynen, S., Surakka, A., Vapaatalo, H., Jarvenpaa, S., Korpela, R., Mutanen, M. and Hatakka, K., 2010. Persistence of probiotic strains in the gastrointestinal tract when administered as capsules, yoghurt, or cheese. International Journal of Food Microbiology 144: 293-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.10.009
-
Saxelin, M., Pessi, T. and Salminen, S., 1995. Fecal recovery following oral-administration of Lactobacillus strain Gg (Atcc-53103) in gelatin capsules to healthy-volunteers. International Journal of Food Microbiology 25: 199-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1605(94)00091-J
-
Shinoda, T., Kusuda, D., Ishida, Y., Ikeda, N., Kaneko, K., Masuda, O. and Yamamoto, N., 2001. Survival of Lactobacillus helveticus strain CP53 in the human gastrointestinal tract. Letters in Applied Microbiology 32: 108-113. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-765x.2001.00870.x
-
Smith, T.J., Anderson, D., Margolis, L.M., Sikes, A. and Young, A.J., 2011. Persistence of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM17938 in the human intestinal tract: response to consecutive and alternate-day supplementation. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 30: 259-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2011.10719968
-
Szajewska, H. and Hojsak, I., 2020. Health benefits of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis BB-12 in children. Postgraduate Medicine 132: 441-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2020.1731214
-
Taverniti, V., Koirala, R., Dalla Via, A., Gargari, G., Leonardis, E., Arioli, S. and Guglielmetti, S., 2019. Effect of cell concentration on the persistence in the human intestine of four probiotic strains administered through a multispecies formulation. Nutrients 11: 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11020285
-
Van Bokhorst-Van de Veen, H., Van Swam, I., Wels, M., Bron, P.A. and Kleerebezem, M., 2012. Congruent strain specific intestinal persistence of Lactobacillus plantarum in an intestine-mimicking in vitro system and in human volunteers. PLoS ONE 7: e44588. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044588
-
Vesa, T., Pochart, P. and Marteau, P., 2000. Pharmacokinetics of Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB 8826, Lactobacillus fermentum KLD, and Lactococcus lactis MG 1363 in the human gastrointestinal tract. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 14: 823-828. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00763.x
-
Wassenaar, T.M., Beimfohr, C., Geske, T. and Zimmermann, K., 2014. Voluntarily exposure to a single, high dose of probiotic Escherichia coli results in prolonged colonisation. Beneficial Microbes 5: 367-375. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2013.0087
-
Zheng, J., Wittouck, S., Salvetti, E., Franz, C., Harris, H.M.B., Mattarelli, P., OâToole, P.W., Pot, B., Vandamme, P., Walter, J., Watanabe, K., Wuyts, S., Felis, G.E., Ganzle, M.G. and Lebeer, S., 2020. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 70: 2782-2858. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.004107
-
Zorzela, L., Ardestani, S.K., McFarland, L.V. and Vohra, S., 2017. Is there a role for modified probiotics as beneficial microbes: a systematic review of the literature. Beneficial Microbes 8: 739-754. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2017.0032
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 866 | 325 | 19 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 880 | 419 | 29 |
A critical evaluation of the factors affecting the survival and persistence of beneficial bacteria in healthy adults
äºBeneficial MicrobesSearch for other papers by L. Morelli in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by P. Pellegrino in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The efficacy of a probiotic depends on its ability to survive and persist in the digestive tract. Regulatory agencies around the world recommend minimum dosages in order for a product to be termed a probiotic. However, the effect of dosage on the survival of the bacteria in the gut â the primary objective of probiotic administration â has not been critically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to assess the available data on the survival rate, during gastrointestinal transit, of probiotic bacteria that were orally administered to healthy adults. We also evaluated the persistence of the administered strain(s) after discontinuation of treatment and the potential role played by the food matrix in which probiotics have been administered. From a regulatory perspective, the profile of the target population is key to establishing the efficacy of probiotics. Therefore, we focussed on subjects without disease conditions. We evaluated 17 studies of single strains and 13 studies of multi-strain products, which reported survival and persistence outcomes. Persistence in the gut and recovery from stool were strain dependent. When the administered dose was higher than 1010 cfu/day, the probiotic could be recovered from stool regardless of the strain used. Treatment duration did not affect faecal recovery. Thus, dosage recommendations for probiotics by regulatory agencies are lower than that required for a strain to survive, persist and be efficacious in the gut.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 866 | 325 | 19 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 880 | 419 | 29 |
