ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2022
Compositional Quality and Possible Gastrointestinal Performance of Marketed Probiotic Supplements.
Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Probiotic properties ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- The gut microbiome as a target in cancer immunotherapy: opportunities and challenges for drug development.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2025Review
- Effect of Food Matrix and Administration Timing on the Survival ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Potentially probiotic NPL 1334 strain of Enterococcus durans benefits rats with diet-induced hypercholesterolemia.BMC biotechnology · 2025Article
- The Effect of Food Matrix Taken with Probiotics on the Survival of Commercial Probiotics in Simulation of Gastrointestinal Digestion.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Development and Applications of CRISPR/Cas9-Based Genome Editing inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Potential role ofWorld journal of diabetes · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The local pharmacies and shops are brimming with various probiotic products that herald a range of health benefits. The poor quality of probiotic products in both dosage and species is symptomatic of this multi-billion-dollar market making it difficult for consumers to single out reliable ones. This study aims to fill the potential gap in the labeling accuracy of probiotic products intended for human consumption. We describe a combinatorial approach using classical culture-dependent technique to quantify and molecular techniques (16 s rRNA gene sequencing, multilocus sequence, and ribotyping) for strain recognition of the microbial contents. The full gamut of probiotic characteristics including acid, bile and lysozyme tolerances, adhesiveness, anti-pathogenicity, and degree of safeness were performed. Their capacity to endure gastro-intestinal (GIT) stresses and select drugs was assessed in vitro. Our results forced us to declare that the local probiotic market is essentially unregulated. Almost none of the probiotic products tested met the label claim. Some (11%) have no viable cells, and a quarter (27%) showing significant inter-batch variation. A lower microbial count was typical with undesirables constituting a quarter of the total (~ 27%). Half of the products contained antibiotic-resistant strains; the unregulated use of these probiotics carries the risk of spreading antibiotic resistance to gut pathobionts. Poor tolerance to gut conditions and mediocre functionalism make the case worse. The current regulatory systems do not take this discrepancy into account. We recommend an evidence-based regular market surveillance of marketed probiotics to ensure the authenticity of the claims and product effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35199309What 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.