ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2007
Are probiotics detectable in human feces after oral uptake by healthy volunteers?
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translational Development of Microbiome-Based Therapeutics: Kinetics of E. coli Nissle and Engineered Strains in Humans and Nonhuman Primates.Clinical and translational science · 2018Trial
- Experimental administration of the probiotic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 results in decreased diversity of E. coli strains in pigs.Current microbiology · 2012Trial
- Modulation of Gut Microbiota through Low-Calorie and Two-Phase Diets in Obese Individuals.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Comprehensive Analysis of the Physiological Characterization of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917.Current microbiology · 2023Article
- Diversity and Adaptations ofMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Effect ofFood science & nutrition · 2019Article
- Microbiome analysis as a platform R&D tool for parasitic nematode disease management.The ISME journal · 2019Article
- Enumeration ofMicroorganisms · 2019Article
- Quantitative Recovery of ViableFrontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Insights from 100 Years of Research with ProbioticEuropean journal of microbiology & immunology · 2016Review
- The overarching influence of the gut microbiome on end-organ function: the role of live probiotic cultures.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2014Review
- Role of F1C fimbriae, flagella, and secreted bacterial components in the inhibitory effect of probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on atypical enteropathogenic E. coli infection.Infection and immunity · 2014Article
- The gut is the epicentre of antibiotic resistance.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2012Article
- E. coli Nissle 1917 Affects Salmonella adhesion to porcine intestinal epithelial cells.PloS one · 2011Article
- Like will to like: abundances of closely related species can predict susceptibility to intestinal colonization by pathogenic and commensal bacteria.PLoS pathogens · 2010Article
- F1C fimbriae play an important role in biofilm formation and intestinal colonization by the Escherichia coli commensal strain Nissle 1917.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2009Review
- A question of survival? Interaction between probiotics and the gastrointestinal tract.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2007Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
goalsAssessment of the presence of probiotic bacteria in feces after oral ingestion.
backgroundProbiotic bacteria are said to have beneficial effects on the host. As a precondition for any effect, probiotic strains must survive passage through the gastrointestinal tract. STUDY: The feces of seven volunteers were analyzed for the presence of probiotic strains after one week's oral ingestion of each of six commercially available products: E. coli Nissle 0.5-5 x 10(9) cells (Mutaflor), Enterococcus faecium SF 68 7.5 x 10(7) cells (Bioflorin), Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium infantis both 1 x 10(9) cells (Infloran), Lactobacillus gasseri and Bifidobacterium longum both 1 x 10(8) cells (Omniflora), Lactobacillus casei rhamnosus 1 x 10(9) cells (Antibiophilus), and yoghurt enriched with Lactobacillus casei Immunitas 1 x 10(10) cells (Actimel). Ten colonies were selected from each stool sample, and DNA was extracted and typed using random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPD). Typing patterns of the ingested probiotics and the fecal isolates were compared.
resultsFingerprints identical to the ingested probiotic strains were recovered from fecal samples of 4/7 volunteers after one week of Mutaflor, from 4/6 after taking Bioflorin, and from 1/6 after Infloran. Cultivation of strains of the same species from fecal specimens was negative after consumption of Antibiophilus, Omniflora and Actimel.
conclusionsAfter oral consumption of probiotics, E. coli and enterococci could be detected in stool samples (57% and 67%, respectively). In contrast, with only one exception, ingested lactobacilli and bifidobacteria could not be detected in human feces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.