No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Commercial literature on various probiotic products suggests that they can be taken before meals, during meals or after meals or even without meals. This has led to serious confusion for the industry and the consumer. The objective of our study was to examine the impact of the time of administration with respect to mealtime and the impact of the buffering capacity of the food on the survival of probiotic microbes during gastrointestinal transit. We used an in vitro Digestive System (IViDiS) model of the upper gastrointestinal tract to examine the survival of a commercial multi-strain probiotic, ProtecFlor®. This product, in a capsule form, contains four different microbes: two lactobacilli (Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011), Bifidobacterium longum R0175 and Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii. Enumeration during and after transit of the stomach and duodenal models showed that survival of all the bacteria in the product was best when given with a meal or 30 minutes before a meal (cooked oatmeal with milk). Probiotics given 30 minutes after the meal did not survive in high numbers. Survival in milk with 1% milk fat and oatmeal-milk gruel were significantly better than apple juice or spring water. S. boulardii was not affected by time of meal or the buffering capacity of the meal. The protein content of the meal was probably not as important for the survival of the bacteria as the fat content. We conclude that ideally, non-enteric coated bacterial probiotic products should be taken with or just prior to a meal containing some fats.

No abstract

No abstract

The goal of this study was to determine the effect of the carrier material, drying technology and dissolution media during the passage of L. fermentum K73 through a dynamic in vitro digestion system (IViDiS).

The goal of this study was to assess the interaction between microencapsulation and a yogurt food matrix on the survival of Lactobacillus reuteri NCIMB 30242 in four different in vitro systems that simulate a gastric environment. The four systems were: United States Pharmacopeia (USP) solutions, a static two-step (STS) procedure which included simulated food ingredients, a constantly dynamic digestion procedure (IViDiS), as well a multi-step dynamic digestion scheme (S'IViDiS). The pH profiles of the various procedures varied between systems with acidity levels being: USP > STS > IViDiS = S'IVIDiS. Addition of a food matrix increased the pH in all systems except for the USP methodology. Microencapsulation in alginate-based gels was effective in protecting the cells in model solutions when no food ingredients were present. The stability of the probiotic culture in the in vitro gastric environments was enhanced when (1) yoghurt or simulated food ingredient were present in the medium in sufficient quantity, (2) pH was higher. The procedure-comparison data of this study will be helpful in interpreting the literature with respect to viable counts of probiotics obtained from different static or dynamic in vitro gastric systems.