ArticleScientific reports2024
In vitro digestive system simulation and anticancer activity of soymilk fermented by probiotics and synbiotics immobilised on agro-industrial residues.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of nutritional components and flavor compounds in naturally fermented, fermentation agent-fermented, and unfermented multi-grain pancakes.Food chemistry: X · 2026Article
- Enhancing Probiotic Performance in Food Matrices: From Strain Selection to Bioengineering.Journal of food science · 2026Review
- Characterization of fermented foods: bone health.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Optimization of kefir fermentation with plantain peel addition: effects on composition, microbial viability, and sensory quality.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, a variety of probiotic strains, including Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Lacticaseibacillus casei, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacterium longum, Limosilactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, and Bifidobacterium bifidum, were utilized for soymilk fermentation both as free cells and as synbiotics on agro-industrial residuals such as okara, whey protein, banana peels, apple pomace, sugarcane bagasse, orange peels, and lemon peels. Among these, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus emerged as the most significant strain for soymilk fermentation, exhibiting a viability of 10.47 log cfu/mL, a pH of 4.41, total acidity of 1.12%, and organic acid contents (lactic and acetic acid) of 11.20 and 7.50 g/L, respectively. As a synbiotic Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus immobilised on okara, showed even more impressive results, with a viability of 12.98 log cfu/mL, a pH of 4.31, total acidity of 1.27%, and organic acid contents of 13.90 and 9.30 g/L, respectively. Over a 12-h fermentation period, cell viability values increased by 10.47-fold in free cells and 11.19-fold in synbiotics. Synbiotic supplementation of fermented soymilk proved more beneficial than free cells in terms of viability, acidity, and organic acid content. Furthermore, when synbiotic fermented soymilk was freeze-dried to simulate the digestive system in vitro, synbiotics and freeze-dried cells demonstrated superior gastrointestinal tract survival compared to free cells. Both the probiotic bacteria and the synbiotics exhibited cytotoxicity against colon and liver cancer cell lines, with half-maximal inhibitory concentrations ranging from 41.96 to 61.52 μL/well.
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.