Probiotics: an overview of beneficial effects

Ouwehand, Arthur C.; Salminen, Seppo; Isolauri, Erika

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2029-8_18

Cited by 407 publications

(500 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

462

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, probiotics have been studied in a variety of bowel diseases other than cancer in humans. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG has been found to alleviate diarrhoea caused by a viral infection or Clostridium difficile, and to be useful in the prevention of traveller's diarrhoea or diarrhoea related to administration of antibiotics (Ouwehand et al, 2002;Vaarala, 2003). Probiotics may also reduce radiation therapy-related diarrhoea (Salminen et al, 1988;Urbancsek et al, 2001;Delia et al, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lactobacillus supplementation for diarrhoea related to chemotherapy of colorectal cancer: a randomised study

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy is frequently associated with diarrhoea. We compared two 5-FU-based regimens and the effect of Lactobacillus and fibre supplementation on treatment tolerability. Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (n ¼ 150) were randomly allocated to receive monthly 5-FU and leucovorin bolus injections (the Mayo regimen) or a bimonthly 5-FU bolus plus continuous infusion (the simplified de Gramont regimen) for 24 weeks as postoperative adjuvant therapy. On the basis of random allocation, the study participants did or did not receive Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG supplementation (1 -2 Â 10 10 per day) and fibre (11 g guar gum per day) during chemotherapy. Patients who received Lactobacillus had less grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea (22 vs 37%, P ¼ 0.027), reported less abdominal discomfort, needed less hospital care and had fewer chemotherapy dose reductions due to bowel toxicity. No Lactobacillus-related toxicity was detected. Guar gum supplementation had no influence on chemotherapy tolerability. The simplified de Gramont regimen was associated with fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse effects than the Mayo regimen (45 vs 89%), and with less diarrhoea. We conclude that Lactobacillus GG supplementation is well tolerated and may reduce the frequency of severe diarrhoea and abdominal discomfort related to 5-FU-based chemotherapy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lactobacillus supplementation for diarrhoea related to chemotherapy of colorectal cancer: a randomised study

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The endogenous microbiota provides critical support to the host in areas such as vitamin and co-factor production, usage of otherwise indigestible feed ingredients, detoxification of food components, coating the gut with a benign microbiota to physically exclude pathogens, production of natural antibiotics and antifungals, maintainance of gut barrier function and promotion of anti-inflammatory response (Madsen et al, 2001;Hooper et al, 2002;Ouwehand et al, 2002;Roselli et al, 2007). A novel role in regulating fat storage has been recently ascribed to microbiota by recent studies, a promotion of monosaccharides absorption from the gut resulting in induction of de novo hepatic lipogenesis has been shown by comparing germ-free mice with conventionalised mice (Bä ckhed et al, 2004).…”

Section: Gut Bacteria and Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an ideal world, the piglet should pick up a protective gut microbiota at birth which would improve nutrient availability by providing vitamins, short chain fatty acids or aminoacids (Cheeson, 1994;Metges, 2000;Resta, 2009), while protecting against environmentally acquired pathogens by direct and indirect (stimulation of the host immune system) means (Ouwehand et al, 2002;Bailey, 2009). This may be the most important 'window' for establishing a potentially beneficial bacterial community, in order to set up life-long, stable associations between the host and microbe.…”

Section: Gut Bacteria and Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probiotics – do they have a role in the pig industry?

Kenny

Smidt

Mengheri

et al. 2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The delivery of certain living microorganisms in food has long been suggested as having positive health effects in humans. This practice has extended into food animal production, with a variety of microorganisms being used; lactic acid bacteria, variousBacillusspecies and the yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiaehave been particularly used in the pig industry. The increased interest in probiotics is essentially due to the problem of microbial resistance to antibiotics and following the ban of the use of antibiotics in animal production, probiotics being considered an alternative means to reduce pathogen infection and improve animal health especially around the time of weaning. However, there is still a need to clarify the probiotic effectiveness in pigs, and the underlying mechanisms. When assessing the efficacy of probiotics one must consider the particular strain of organism being used and the production stage of the pigs being treated. The reproducible delivery of probiotics in industrial pig production is problematic as maintenance of viability is key to their beneficial activity, but difficult to achieve with commonly used feed processing technologies. One specific context where probiotics organisms may be reliably delivered is in systems utilising fermented liquid feeds. Liquid feed may be fermented by the activity of wild lactic acid bacteria or may be stimulated using specific isolates as ‘starters’; the latter system has advantages in terms of reproducibility and speed of fermentation. The farm context in which the organism is used is likely to be critical; the use of probiotics is more likely to result in measurable economic gains in animals living in sub-optimal conditions rather than in those reared in the highest welfare and husbandry conditions. The establishment of a beneficial lactic acid bacteria population at birth may lead to healthier animals, this may be most effectively achieved by treating sows, which provide an amplification step and flood the neonatal pigs’ environment with desirable bacterial strains. In contrast, it may be sufficient to provide a supportive, protective microbiota around the time of weaning as this is a time of major crisis with instability and loss of certain bacterial populations.

show abstract

“…After 14 days, there was no notable difference in cell numbers of the two bacteria in all groups. L. plantarum has long been considered as a probiotic and been used for food fermentation (30). Probiotic increased the number of beneficial bacteria Bifidocbacterium, reduced the number of harmful bacteria C. perfringen in the early phase of treatment is an indisputable fact (3).…”

Section: Analysis Of Microbiotamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies indicated that intestinal microbiota enzymes play a very vital role in the development of colon cancer (30). In contrast to the control group, Lp-and Lp 590-fed rats exhibited a statistically significant decrease in the activities of b-glucuronidase, b-glucosidase, and nitroreductase, which are known to be associated with the conversion of procarcinogens into proximal carcinogens (21) before 14 days.…”

Section: Analysis Of Microbiota Metabolitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of genetically modified Lactobacillus plantarum 590 on the gut health of sprague–dawley rats

Liu

Yang

et al. 2012

IUBMB Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lp was a generally recognized as safe microorganism. Lactobacillus plantarum 590 was obtained by inserting nisI gene into Lp genome to help it tolerate higher concentration nisin. As the unintended effects of the genetically modified microorganism (GMM) are the most important barriers to the progress of GMM, we have performed a useful exploration to establish a new in vivo evaluation model for GMM from the point of view of intestinal health. In this study, Sprague–Dawley rats were orally administered with Lp 590 and Lp for 4 weeks. Fecal samples were collected to determine the number of beneficial bacteria Bifidobacterium and harmful bacteria Clostridium perfringens. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis was used to detect the bacterial profiles of every group. Fecal enzyme activities and short‐chain fatty acids as main metabolites were also examined. Real time PCR (RT‐PCR) and immunohistochemistry were used to analyze two proteins (ZO‐1 and occludin) and secretory immunoglobulin A to detect intestinal permeability and mucosal immunity, gut permeability and gut mucosal immunity were analyzed to see whether GM Lp 590 can induce changes of the gut health when compared with non‐GM Lp group, andeventually we concluded that there is no significant difference between GM Lp 590‐fed group and non‐GM Lp‐fed group. The conclusion of gut health test was comparable withthat from traditional subchronic test. Evaluation of intestinal health will be a new approach of assessing the safety of GMM. © 2012 IUBMB Life, 64(7): 617–627, 2012.

show abstract

Probiotics: an overview of beneficial effects

Cited by 407 publications

References 37 publications

Lactobacillus supplementation for diarrhoea related to chemotherapy of colorectal cancer: a randomised study

Lactobacillus supplementation for diarrhoea related to chemotherapy of colorectal cancer: a randomised study

Probiotics – do they have a role in the pig industry?

The effect of genetically modified Lactobacillus plantarum 590 on the gut health of sprague–dawley rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About