Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25741323›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2015

Discovering probiotic microorganisms: in vitro, in vivo, genetic and omics approaches.

Konstantinos Papadimitriou, Georgia Zoumpopoulou, Benoit Foligné, Voula Alexandraki, Maria Kazou, Bruno Pot, Effie Tsakalidou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 147 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

147 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Inhibition ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

87 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Konstantinos PapadimitriouLaboratory of Dairy Research, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens Greece.
Georgia ZoumpopoulouLaboratory of Dairy Research, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens Greece.
Benoit FolignéBactéries Lactiques et Immunité des Muqueuses, Institut Pasteur de Lille, Centre d'Infection et d'Immunité de Lille, Université Lille Nord de France, CNRS UMR8204, Lille France.
Voula AlexandrakiLaboratory of Dairy Research, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens Greece.
Maria KazouLaboratory of Dairy Research, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens Greece.
Bruno PotBactéries Lactiques et Immunité des Muqueuses, Institut Pasteur de Lille, Centre d'Infection et d'Immunité de Lille, Université Lille Nord de France, CNRS UMR8204, Lille France.
Effie TsakalidouLaboratory of Dairy Research, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decades the food industry has been revolutionized toward the production of functional foods due to an increasing awareness of the consumers on the positive role of food in wellbeing and health. By definition probiotic foods must contain live microorganisms in adequate amounts so as to be beneficial for the consumer's health. There are numerous probiotic foods marketed today and many probiotic strains are commercially available. However, the question that arises is how to determine the real probiotic potential of microorganisms. This is becoming increasingly important, as even a superficial search of the relevant literature reveals that the number of proclaimed probiotics is growing fast. While the vast majority of probiotic microorganisms are food-related or commensal bacteria that are often regarded as safe, probiotics from other sources are increasingly being reported raising possible regulatory and safety issues. Potential probiotics are selected after in vitro or in vivo assays by evaluating simple traits such as resistance to the acidic conditions of the stomach or bile resistance, or by assessing their impact on complicated host functions such as immune development, metabolic function or gut-brain interaction. While final human clinical trials are considered mandatory for communicating health benefits, rather few strains with positive studies have been able to convince legal authorities with these health claims. Consequently, concern has been raised about the validity of the workflows currently used to characterize probiotics. In this review we will present an overview of the most common assays employed in screening for probiotics, highlighting the potential strengths and limitations of these approaches. Furthermore, we will focus on how the advent of omics technologies has reshaped our understanding of the biology of probiotics, allowing the exploration of novel routes for screening and studying such microorganisms.

Indexed as

health claimin vitro modelin vivo modelmechanismmolecular markeromicsprobioticsscreening

Identifiers

PMID25741323
PMCPMC4330916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.