4.4 Article

Safety assessment of Bacillus subtilis CU1 for use as a probiotic in humans

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 54-65

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.11.010

关键词

Bacillus subtilis; probiotic; Clinical study; Food safety; Human; Safety

资金

  1. French Government 3rd FUI research program
  2. Research cluster Prod'Innov of the region Aquitaine
  3. LESAFFRE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacillus subtilis CU1 is a recently described probiotic strain with beneficial effects on immune health in elderly subjects. The following work describes a series of studies supporting the safety of the strain for use as an ingredient in food and supplement preparations. Using a combination of 16S rDNA and gyrB nucleotide analyses, the species was identified as a member of the Bacillus subtilis complex (B. subtilis subsp. spizizenii). Further characterization of the organism at the strain level was achieved using random amplified polymorphic DNA polymerase chain reaction (RAPD PCR) and pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analyses. B. subtilis CU1 did not demonstrate antibiotic resistance greater than existing regulatory cutoffs against clinically important antibiotics, did not induce hemolysis or produce surfactant factors, and was absent of toxigenic activity in vitro. Use of B. subtilis CU1 as a probiotic has recently been evaluated in a 16-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study, in which 2 x 10(9) spores per day of B. subtilis CU1 were administered for a total 40 days to healthy elderly subjects (4 consumption periods of 10 days separated by 18-day washouts). This work describes safety related endpoints not previously reported. B. subtilis CU1 was safe and well-tolerated in the clinical subjects without undesirable physiological effects on markers of liver and kidney function, complete blood counts, hemodynamic parameters, and vital signs. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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