Prebiotics: why definitions matter

Hutkins, Robert W.; Krumbeck, Janina A.; Bindels, Laure B.; Cani, Patrice D.; Fahey, G. C.; Goh, Yong Jun; Hamaker, Bruce R.; Martens, Eric C.; Mills, David A.; Rastal, Robert A.; Vaughan, Elaine E.; Sanders, Mary Ellen

doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2015.09.001

Cited by 340 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the proposed definitions already described, as well as others, the need for a consensus definition was evi dent 23 . This need was amplified by views that the pre biotic concept required clarification on specificity, mech anisms of effect, health attributes and relevance, with some authors being critical of concepts already put forward and its approaches [24][25][26] .…”

Section: Evolution Of the Term Prebioticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most effective approaches are those that rely on prevention and recognize that early life strategies that promote a resilient, diverse and healthy microbiota have greatest long term potential to benefit health 81,82 . Evidence for the important relationship between the structure and function of the microbial com munity, prebiotic use and host health has accumulated rapidly over the past decade 20,23,30 . To satisfy the criterion of conferring a health benefit, controlled studies estab lishing direct links between the prebiotic and health are needed in the target host.…”

Section: Conferring a Health Benefitmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics

Gibson

Hutkins

Sanders³

et al. 2017

Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol

Self Cite

3,406

2,114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In December 2016, a panel of experts in microbiology, nutrition and clinical research was convened by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics to review the definition and scope of prebiotics. Consistent with the original embodiment of prebiotics, but aware of the latest scientific and clinical developments, the panel updated the definition of a prebiotic: a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit. This definition expands the concept of prebiotics to possibly include non-carbohydrate substances, applications to body sites other than the gastrointestinal tract, and diverse categories other than food. The requirement for selective microbiota-mediated mechanisms was retained. Beneficial health effects must be documented for a substance to be considered a prebiotic. The consensus definition applies also to prebiotics for use by animals, in which microbiota-focused strategies to maintain health and prevent disease is as relevant as for humans. Ultimately, the goal of this Consensus Statement is to engender appropriate use of the term 'prebiotic' by relevant stakeholders so that consistency and clarity can be achieved in research reports, product marketing and regulatory oversight of the category. To this end, we have reviewed several aspects of prebiotic science including its development, health benefits and legislation

show abstract

Section: Evolution Of the Term Prebioticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conferring a Health Benefitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics

Gibson

Hutkins

Sanders³

et al. 2017

Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol

Self Cite

3,406

2,114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, several revisions of the original definition have been made to satisfy the scientific community, regulatory authorities, the food industry, and the final consumers [24]. In particular, the optimal definition should be valid not only for food but also for feed.…”

Section: Oligosaccharide Effect On Pig Fecal Microbiotamentioning

confidence: 99%

Enzymatic production of wheat and ryegrass derived xylooligosaccharides and evaluation of their in vitro effect on pig gut microbiota

Доценко

Meyer

Canibe

et al. 2017

Biomass Conv. Bioref.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines enzymatic production of linear xylooligosaccharides (XOS) and branched arabinoxylooligosaccharides (AXOS) from monocotyledonous biomass, wheat straw and ryegrass, and compares the in vitro effects of these XOS and AXOS on pig gut microbiota. XOS and AXOS were obtained from the biomass by treatment with different endo-1,4-β-xylanases. XOS of DP2-6 from wheat straw, obtained after treatment with Aspergillus niger endo GH11, suppressed growth of Clostridium perfringens and resulted in a high level of lactic acid production when fermented in vitro by pig fecal microbiota. Analogously, XOS ryegrass produced in the same way also suppressed Cl. perfringens growth, and more so than the corresponding ryegrass AXOS, but AXOS exhibited a more pronounced stimulation of lactic acid bacteria growth than XOS. The prebiotic potential, i.e., suppression of Cl. perfringens and stimulation of lactic acid bacteria, for the ryegrass oligosaccharides was as follows: XOS, produced by A. niger endo-1,4-β-xylanase (GH 11) ≥ AXOS, produced by Thermotoga maritima and Cellvibrio mixtus endo-1,4-β-xylanase s (GH10) > AXOS, produced by Trichoderma viride and Aspergillus aculeatus endo-1,4-β-xylanase s (GH11). These results indicate that wheat straw as well as green grass biomass such as ryegrass have potential as new sources of putative prebiotics for pig feed.

show abstract

“…The scientific community has continued to debate concerning what it means to be a prebiotic. Although the absence of a consensus definition, a principle element is that prebiotic should improve the health of host or otherwise provide a beneficial physiological effect (Hutkins et al, 2016). Feeding prebiotic would be more effective when combined with the addition of beneficial bacteria as probiotic because both are expected to be complementary as a symbiotic mutualism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meat Characteristic of Crossbred Local Chicken Fed Inulin of Dahlia Tuber and Lactobacillus sp.

Abdurrahman¹,

Pramono²,

Suthama³

2016

Med Pet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to evaluate the meat characteristic of crossbred local chicken fed diet containing both dahlia tuber powder as inulin source and probiotic Lactobacillus sp. The experimental animals were 168 crossbred local chickens which were randomly divided into 6 groups of treatment (4 replications each) when they were 21-d old. A completely randomized design with 2 x 3 factorial pattern consisted of 2 levels of prebiotic [(0.8% (D1) and 1.2% (D2)] and 3 levels of probiotic [without probiotic (L0), 1.2 mL (L1), and 2.4 mL (L2)] was arranged in the present study. One mL probiotic (Lactobacillus sp.) was equal to 10 8 cfu. Results showed that the supplementation of prebiotic and probiotic significantly (P<0.05) affected breast meat color in terms of L* (lightness) and b* (yellowness). The meat fat mass and cholesterol was significantly (P<0.05) decreased by the combination of prebiotic and probiotic. The hardness of meat was not affected significantly by all treatments. The conclusion is that breast meat color could be improved, and both meat fat mass and cholesterol content could be decreased by feeding a combination of 1.2% dahlia tuber powder as inulin source and 1.2 mL probiotic Lactobacillus sp. Key words: prebiotic inulin, probiotic Lactobacillus sp., meat characteristic, crossbred local chicken ABSTRAKTujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengevaluasi karakteristik daging ayam lokal persilangan yang diberi ransum mengandung kombinasi prebiotik inulin dari umbi dahlia dan probiotik Lactobacillus sp. Penelitian menggunakan 168 ekor ayam lokal persilangan umur 21 hari yang secara acak ditempatkan pada 6 perlakuan dengan 4 ulangan. Rancangan acak lengkap pola faktorial 2 x 3 diterapkan pada penelitian ini. Penambahan prebiotik sebanyak 0,8% (D1) dan 1,2% (D2) sebagai faktor pertama, dan penambahan probiotik yaitu tanpa probiotik (L0), probiotik 1,2 mL (L1), dan 2,4 mL (L2) sebagai faktor kedua. Satu mililiter probiotik (Lactobacillus sp.) setara dengan 10 8 cfu. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penambahan prebiotik dan probiotik pada ransum nyata (P<0,05) mempengaruhi warna daging dada berdasarkan L* (tingkat kecerahan) dan b* (tingkat kekuningan). Massa lemak dan kolesterol nyata (P<0,05) menurun akibat penambahan prebiotik dan probiotik. Kekerasan daging tidak nyata dipengaruhi oleh perlakuan. Kesimpulannya adalah bahwa 1,2% prebiotik dan probiotik 1,2 mL (10 8 cfu/mL) adalah kombinasi yang paling optimum berdasarkan perbaikan warna daging dada dan penurunan massa lemak dan kolesterol daging.

show abstract

Prebiotics: why definitions matter

Cited by 340 publications

References 59 publications

Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics

Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics

Enzymatic production of wheat and ryegrass derived xylooligosaccharides and evaluation of their in vitro effect on pig gut microbiota

Meat Characteristic of Crossbred Local Chicken Fed Inulin of Dahlia Tuber and Lactobacillus sp.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About