4.7 Article

Microbiological Quality and Resistance to an Artificial Gut Environment of Two Probiotic Formulations

期刊

FOODS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10112781

关键词

probiotics; quality; viable cells; identification; gastrointestinal behavior

资金

  1. Sanofi S.r.l., Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quality control of probiotic products is a global focus, with studies revealing microbiological issues in many commercial formulations. This paper analyzed two probiotic formulations, showing high quality in terms of microorganism identification and quantity, along with good tolerance to simulated intestinal conditions.
The quality control of probiotic products is the focus of numerous organizations worldwide. Several studies have highlighted the poor microbiological quality of many commercial probiotic formulations in terms of the identity of the contained microorganisms, viability, and purity, thus precluding the expected health benefits and representing a potential health risk for consumers. In this paper, we analyzed the contents of two probiotic formulations, one composed of an encapsulated mixture of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, and one by a lyophilized yeast. The microorganisms contained in the products were quantified and identified using up-to-date methodologies, such as MALDI-TOF MS and metagenomic analysis. Moreover, as acid and bile tolerance is included among the criteria used to select probiotic microorganisms, in vitro tests were performed to evaluate the behavior of the formulations in conditions mimicking the harsh gastric environment and the intestinal fluids. Our results indicate the high quality of the formulations in terms of the enumeration and identification of the contained organisms, as well as the absence of contaminants. Moreover, both products tolerated the acidic conditions well, with encapsulation providing further protection for the microorganisms. A good tolerance to the simulated artificial intestinal conditions was also evidenced for both preparations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据