Digestive Health

Ouwehand, Arthur C.; Mäkeläinen, Henna; and, Kirsti Tiihonen; Rautonen, Nina

doi:10.1002/9780470996003.ch3

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In brief, probiotics are “ live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host ” [18]. Prebiotics are “ nondigestible food ingredients that, when consumed in sufficient amounts, selectively stimulate the growth and/or activity of one or a limited number of microbes in the colon, resulting in documented health benefits ” [19]. A synbiotic is a combination of prebiotic and probiotic substances [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Three-Month Intake of Synbiotic on Inflammation and Body Composition in the Elderly: A Pilot Study

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We hypothesize that improvements in the gut microbiota are capable of ameliorating gut permeability and, consequently, reducing systemic inflammation and the risk of frailty. This study aims to evaluate some effects of synbiotic supplementation on inflammatory markers and the body composition of the elderly at risk of frailty. In a double-blind study that lasted three months, 17 elderly individuals fulfilling one frailty criteria (grip strength) were randomly distributed into two groups: SYN (n = 9), daily intake of synbiotic (6 g Frutooligossacarides, 108 to 109 CFU Lactobacillus paracasei, 108 to 109 CFU Lactobacillus rhamnosus, 108 to 109 CFU Lactobacillus acidophilus and 108 to 109 CFU Bifidobacterium lactis), or placebo (maltodextrin; PLA; n = 8). Subjects were analyzed for anthropometric measurements, bioelectric impedance with vectorial analysis (BIVA), IL-6 and TNF-α. A comparison between groups did not show any difference for the variables investigated. In turn, individual analysis of electrical impedance (BIVA) demonstrated that the majority of SYN individuals maintained or improved their tissue hydration, when compared to the PLA group after supplementation. In conclusion, three months of synbiotic supplementation did not promote any significant changes in inflammatory cytokines or body composition, but demonstrated a trend towards a preservation of hydration status in apparently healthy elderly individuals.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Three-Month Intake of Synbiotic on Inflammation and Body Composition in the Elderly: A Pilot Study

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are two genera that have been recognized to confer health benefits -E-mail: patra_amlan@yahoo.com in animals and humans (Gibson et al, 2005). A healthy or balanced microbiota helps prevent gastrointestinal disorders by protecting against incoming pathogenic microbes and modulating immune responses (Guarner, 2005;Ouwehand et al, 2006;Suchodolski, 2010). A healthy or balanced flora in the gut is predominantly saccharolytic and comprises significant numbers of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus species (Gibson and Roberfroid, 1995;Cummings et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of feeding prebiotics on nutrient digestibility, faecal microbiota composition and short-chain fatty acid concentrations in dogs: a meta-analysis

Patra

2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of prebiotics on digestibility, short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentrations and bacterial populations in the faeces and immunity in dogs were evaluated by meta-analyses. Overall, data from 15 published studies containing 65 different treatment means of 418 observations from different breeds of dogs were included in the data set. Feeding of prebiotics to dogs did not affect the nutrient intake (P . 0.10), nor did prebiotics change (P . 0.10) the digestibility of dry matter (DM) and fat. However, crude protein (CP) digestibility tended to decrease quadratically (P 5 0.06) with increasing dosages of prebiotics, although the degree of prediction was low (R 2 5 0.33). The concentration of total SCFA (P 5 0.08; R 2 5 0.90) tended to increase linearly, whereas concentration of acetate (R 2 5 0.25), propionate (R 2 5 0.88) and butyrate (R 2 5 0.85) increased quadratically with increasing dosage of prebiotics in the faeces of dogs. The numbers of beneficial bifidobacteria (P , 0.01; R 2 5 0.62) increased quadratically, but lactobacilli (P , 0.01; R 2 5 0.66) increased linearly with increasing supplementation of prebiotics. The changes in healthy bacterial numbers were affected by the interaction of initial bacterial numbers and dose of prebiotics; bacterial numbers increased relatively more when initial bacterial numbers were low. Dietary composition did not influence the response of prebiotics on lactobacilli and bifidobacterial numbers in this study. The numbers of pathogenic Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli were not affected by prebiotics. Prebiotics did not affect the serum immunoglobulin (Ig) concentrations such as IgG, IgA and IgM in dogs. Although prebiotics may tend to have an adverse effect on CP digestibility, prebiotics at doses up to 1.40% food intake (DM basis) might increase the beneficial bacterial populations and SCFA concentrations in the faeces of dogs. Thus, the feeding of prebiotics has a great prospective to improve the intestinal health of dogs.

show abstract