Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42696197›Full record

ArticleMarine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.)2026

Mariculture Probiotics: A Scoping Review of Research Trends, Knowledge Gaps and Opportunities.

Lucien Alperstein, Jadranka Nappi, Suhelen Egan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lucien AlpersteinCentre for Marine Science and Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of New South Wales, Room 501B, Level 5 East, Biological Sciences North (D26), UNSW, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3838-6354
Jadranka NappiCentre for Marine Science and Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of New South Wales, Room 501B, Level 5 East, Biological Sciences North (D26), UNSW, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4998-8799
Suhelen EganCentre for Marine Science and Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of New South Wales, Room 501B, Level 5 East, Biological Sciences North (D26), UNSW, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia. s.egan@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3286-4279

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of probiotics - live microorganisms - to enhance growth and prevent disease in mariculture species is an emerging alternative to conventional methods including antibiotics, vaccines and chemical intervention. While others have reviewed specific host organisms and probiotic genera, this review synthesises the scientific literature on the use of probiotics across a range of marine organisms to identify knowledge gaps and research opportunities. We identified widespread methodological heterogeneity, making direct inter-study comparisons difficult. Despite this limitation, 86% of in vivo studies documented positive outcomes following probiotic administration. Crustacean and finfish research dominates the field, encompassing 77% of the current literature, while molluscs, macroalgae and other invertebrates remain relatively understudied despite their significant ecosystem services and contribution to aquaculture. Probiotics provide multiple reported benefits to marine hosts, including increased growth and survival, and protection against pathogens. Bacillus and Lactobacillus from terrestrial environments are the dominant probiotics used across all studies, while marine-derived probiotic genera including Pseudoalteromonas, Vibrio, Phaeobacter, Shewanella, and Halomonas showed benefits across several hosts but remain relatively underutilised. Approximately 34% of publications evaluated the use of microorganisms isolated from the same host species in which the probiotics were tested. This review highlights the opportunity for further research into underutilised autochthonous probiotic genera and development of standardised research guidelines. We propose that future research should prioritise understanding probiotic mechanisms of action, and their use in rapidly expanding and understudied systems including macroalgae and molluscs, to ensure continued productivity with minimal impact on marine ecosystems.

Indexed as

AquacultureAquatic OrganismsProbioticsAnimalsCrustaceaFishesMolluscaBeneficial microorganismsBiotechnologyMaricultureMicrobiome manipulationProbiotics

Identifiers

PMID42696197
PMCPMC13545048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.