Probiotics

Anadón, Arturo; Martínez-Larrañaga, María Rosa; Arés, Irma; Martínez, María Aránzazu

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-802147-7.00055-3

Cited by 16 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, a probiotic safety assessment should consider the probiotic’s physiological characteristics, treatment method (e.g., oral administration, skin spray, gel, capsule, etc. ), exposure dosage, consumers’ health, and the physiological functions required for effective probiotic performance [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety Evaluations of Bifidobacterium bifidum BGN4 and Bifidobacterium longum BORI

Kim¹,

Kim³

et al. 2018

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, a variety of lactic acid bacteria have been commercially available to and steadily used by consumers. However, recent studies have shown that some lactic acid bacteria produce toxic substances and display properties of virulence. To establish safety guidelines for lactic acid bacteria, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) has suggested that lactic acid bacteria be characterized and proven safe for consumers’ health via multiple experiments (e.g., antibiotic resistance, metabolic activity, toxin production, hemolytic activity, infectivity in immune-compromised animal species, human side effects, and adverse-outcome analyses). Among the lactic acid bacteria, Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus species are probiotic strains that are most commonly commercially produced and actively studied. Bifidobacterium bifidum BGN4 and Bifidobacterium longum BORI have been used in global functional food markets (e.g., China, Germany, Jordan, Korea, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam) as nutraceutical ingredients for decades, without any adverse events. However, given that the safety of some newly screened probiotic species has recently been debated, it is crucial that the consumer safety of each commercially utilized strain be confirmed. Accordingly, this paper details a safety assessment of B. bifidum BGN4 and B. longum BORI via the assessment of ammonia production, hemolysis of blood cells, biogenic amine production, antimicrobial susceptibility pattern, antibiotic resistance gene transferability, PCR data on antibiotic resistance genes, mucin degradation, genome stability, and possession of virulence factors. These probiotic strains showed neither hemolytic activity nor mucin degradation activity, and they did not produce ammonia or biogenic amines (i.e., cadaverine, histamine or tyramine). B. bifidum BGN4 and B. longum BORI produced a small amount of putrescine, commonly found in living cells, at levels similar to or lower than that found in other foods (e.g., spinach, ketchup, green pea, sauerkraut, and sausage). B. bifidum BGN4 showed higher resistance to gentamicin than the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) cut-off. However, this paper shows the gentamicin resistance of B. bifidum BGN4 was not transferred via conjugation with L. acidophilus ATCC 4356, the latter of which is highly susceptible to gentamicin. The entire genomic sequence of B. bifidum BGN4 has been published in GenBank (accession no.: CP001361.1), documenting the lack of retention of plasmids capable of transferring an antibiotic-resistant gene. Moreover, there was little genetic mutation between the first and 25th generations of B. bifidum BGN4. Tetracycline-resistant genes are prevalent among B. longum strains; B. longum BORI has a tet(W) gene on its chromosome DNA and has also shown resistance to tetracycline. However, this research shows that its tetracycline resistance was not transferred via conjugation with L. fermentum AGBG1, the ...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety Evaluations of Bifidobacterium bifidum BGN4 and Bifidobacterium longum BORI

Kim¹,

Kim³

et al. 2018

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although most probiotics are beneficial and regarded as GRAS (generally recognised as safe), few among them possess negative side effects such as allergies, infections, skin complications, GI tract inflammation, metabolism irregularities and stimulations in the immune system (Anad on et al, 2016), which in turn creates challenges in food processing in the non-dairy synbiotic industry.…”

Section: Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review on potential non‐dairy synbiotic beverages: a preliminary approach using legumes

Chaturvedi

Chakraborty

2020

Int J of Food Sci Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past few years, certain functional foods have gained consumer acceptance like those containing synbiotics (a blend of both prebiotics and probiotics) in different food systems. Synbiotics enhance gut functionality and confer health benefits to humans. However, due to the limitations exerted by dairy-based matrices like lactose intolerance, milk allergies, limited shelf life and inclination towards veganism, consumer's interest in non-dairy foods has increased. Among the non-dairy matrices, legumes (such as chickpeas, kidney beans, lupin) are the less explored areas with the majority focus on only soya beans. The present review gives brief information about the different research associating with various legume-based probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotic foods narrowing down specifically to beverages. The integration of such information will allow the researchers to explore product development using new prebiotic ingredients that have not been studied in much detail and hold an exceptional potential to be employed in the synbiotic food industry.

show abstract

“…It prevents the bacterial DNA replication and synthesis via inhibition of the A subunit of the bacterial DNA gyrase. Drug residues is defined as the very low amounts of drugs remained in animal products [13], that may lead to allergy, antibiotic resistance, disruption of intestinal flora and chronic toxic effects with prolonged administration [14]. Fluoroquinolones have health hazards as they cause gastro-intestinal toxicity, photo irritation and developmental alteration with joints inflammation [15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of Marbofloxacin residues in Rabbit Tissues by HPLC

Aziz

El‐Nabtity

Barawy³

et al. 2017

Zagazig Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was designed to evaluate marbofloxacin residues in different rabbit tissues after multiple intramuscular administrations. For that purpose, rabbits were divided into two groups; the first group (n=21) administered 2mg/kg marbofloxacin for five successive days, while the second group (n=3) were untreated and served as controls. th and 21 st day after the last dose post administration of the drug. Liver, kidneys, pectoral muscle and thigh muscles, spleen, heart, blood and lung from each rabbit were taken, extracted and marbofloxacin residues were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatographic method with ultraviolet detection. Results indicated a widespread distribution of marbofloxacin in the most tested tissues. It remained within detectable level till the 5 th day in liver and serum while it continues till the 7 th in kidneys day following the last dose. Therefore, muscles of rabbits treated with marbofloxacin could be consumed safely following the 1 st day post treatment, while liver and kidneys could be consumed safely in the 3 rd day after treatment without any hazards on consumers as the residual level below the recommended MRL (150µg/kg).

show abstract

Probiotics

Cited by 16 publications

References 70 publications

Safety Evaluations of Bifidobacterium bifidum BGN4 and Bifidobacterium longum BORI

Safety Evaluations of Bifidobacterium bifidum BGN4 and Bifidobacterium longum BORI

Review on potential non‐dairy synbiotic beverages: a preliminary approach using legumes

Determination of Marbofloxacin residues in Rabbit Tissues by HPLC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About