ArticleFEMS microbes2020
Expired probiotics: what is really in your cabinet?
Article in FEMS microbes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technological Innovation and Consumer Trust: Understanding Safety Perceptions in Next Generation Probiotic Development.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- The strain-dependent cytostatic activity of Lactococcus lactis on CRC cell lines is mediated through the release of arginine deiminase.Microbial cell factories · 2024Article
- Oral and Topical Probiotics and Postbiotics in Skincare and Dermatological Therapy: A Concise Review.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Beyond probiotics: a narrative review on an era of revolution.Food science and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Long-Duration Space Travel Support Must Consider Wider Influences to Conserve Microbiota Composition and Function.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The popularity of using probiotics has surged, since they became widely accepted as safe and help improve general health. Inevitably, some of these products are used after expiration when microbial cell viability is below the recommended effective dose. Given that probiotics must be live microorganisms administered in adequate amounts, the aim of this study was to measure viability in expired products and assess how packaging and storage conditions impact efficacy, if at all. Thirty-three expired probiotic products were evaluated, of which 26 were stored in conditions recommended by the manufacturer. The viable microbial cells were enumerated and representative isolates identified by 16S and internally transcribed spacer rRNA gene sequencing. While the products had a mean past expiration time of 11.32 (1-22) years, 22 still had viable contents, and 5 were within or above the original product cell count claim. Product formulation and the number of species present did not appear to impact the stability of the products. However, overall packaging type, storage conditions and time since expiry were found to affect viability. All products with viable cells had the strain stipulated on the label. Despite some selected probiotic products retaining viability past their expiry date (indicating long-term storage is possible), the total counts were mostly well below that required for efficacious use as recommended by the manufacturer. Consuming expired probiotics may not yield the benefits for which they were designed.
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.