SynthesisProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2024
Encapsulation of Saccharomyces spp. for Use as Probiotic in Food and Feed: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Probiotics, particularly yeasts from the genus Saccharomyces, are valuable for their health benefits and potential as antibiotic alternatives. To be effective, these microorganisms must withstand harsh environmental conditions, necessitating advanced protective technologies such as encapsulation to maintain probiotic viability during processing, storage, and passage through the digestive system. This review and meta-analysis aims to describe and compare methods and agents used for encapsulating Saccharomyces spp., examining operating conditions, yeast origins, and species. It provides an overview of the literature on the health benefits of nutritional yeast consumption. A bibliographic survey was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The meta-analysis compared encapsulation methods regarding their viability after encapsulation and exposure to the gastrointestinal tract. Nineteen studies were selected after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria. Freeze drying was found to be the most efficient for cell survival, while ionic gelation was best for maintaining viability after exposure to the gastrointestinal tract. Consequently, the combination of freeze drying and ionic gelation proved most effective in maintaining high cell viability during encapsulation, storage, and consumption. Research on probiotics for human food and animal feed indicates that combining freeze drying and ionic gelation effectively protects Saccharomyces spp.; however, industrial scalability must be considered. Reports on yeast encapsulation using agro-industrial residues as encapsulants offer promising strategies for preserving potential probiotic yeasts, contributing to the environmental sustainability of industrial processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39249640What 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.