Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27657913›Full record

ArticlePloS one

Production Conditions Affect the In Vitro Anti-Tumoral Effects of a High Concentration Multi-Strain Probiotic Preparation.

Benedetta Cinque, Cristina La Torre, Francesca Lombardi, Paola Palumbo, Michel Van der Rest, Maria Grazia Cifone

RetractedErratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benedetta CinqueDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Building Delta 6, Coppito, L'Aquila, Italy.
Cristina La TorreDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Building Delta 6, Coppito, L'Aquila, Italy.
Francesca LombardiDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Building Delta 6, Coppito, L'Aquila, Italy.
Paola PalumboDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Building Delta 6, Coppito, L'Aquila, Italy.
Michel Van der RestBioVisible BV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maria Grazia CifoneDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Building Delta 6, Coppito, L'Aquila, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9923-5445
University of L'Aquila · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A careful selection of the probiotic agent, standardization of the dose and detailed characterization of the beneficial effects are essential when considering use of a probiotic for the dietary management of serious diseases. However, changes in the manufacturing processes, equipment or facilities can result in differences in the product itself due to the live nature of probiotics. The need to reconfirm safety and/or efficacy for any probiotic product made at a different factory is therefore mandatory. Recently, under the brand VSL#3®, a formulation produced by a manufacturer different from the previous one, has been commercialized in some European countries (the UK and Holland). VSL#3 is a high concentration multi-strain preparation which has been recognized by the main Gastroenterology Associations for the dietary management of pouchitis as well as ulcerative colitis. We have compared the "original" VSL#3 produced in USA with the "newfound" VSL#3 produced in Italy. According to our results, the "newfound" VSL#3 has 130-150% more "dead bacteria" compared to the "original" product, raising concerns for the well-known association between dead microbes with adverse effects. The abilities of bacterial lysates from the two formulations to influence in vitro viability and proliferation of different tumor cell lines also resulted different. The repair of previously scratched monolayers of various adherent tumor cell lines (i.e. HT1080, and Caco-2 cells) was inhibited more significantly by the "original" VSL#3 when compared to the "newfound" VSL#3. Tumor cell cycle profile, in particular cell cycle arrest and apoptotic death of the cancer cells, further confirms that the "original" VSL#3 has a better functional profile than the "newfound" VSL#3, at least in in vitro. Our data stress the importance of the production conditions for the "newfound" VSL#3 considering that this product is intended to be used for the dietary management of patients with very serious diseases, such as chronic inflammatory bowel diseases.

Identifiers

PMID27657913
PMCPMC5033378
OpenAlexW2523558040

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.