| Title |
Novel encapsulation improves recovery of probiotic strains in fecal samples of human volunteers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00253-016-7915-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Volker Mai, Sheldon Waugh, Doratha Byrd, Damion Simpson, Maria Ukhanova |
| Abstract |
Probiotic supplements can contribute to maintaining health and ameliorating various disease symptoms. Probiotics can be delivered in many forms with crucial differences in their survival during gastrointestinal (GI) passage. Previously, a novel encapsulation, Probiotic Pearls™ Acidophilus, Integrative Therapeutics, LLC, USA (Pearls), was shown to increase survival in vitro after exposure to gastric conditions. Here, we compare fecal recovery in human volunteers consuming Pearls or a conventional hard-shelled gelatin capsule. We performed a randomized double-blinded, two-armed trial, with six healthy subjects in each 12-day study arm. In fecal samples collected at baseline, twice during the intervention period, and after washout, we compared colony counts between the two encapsulation methods. The identity of the colonies was confirmed by colony morphology, strain-specific PCR, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We further performed a comprehensive 16S rRNA gene sequencing-based analysis to identify differential effects on overall microbiota composition. We detected an average log increase in bifidobacteria of 0.152 cfu/g with gelatin and 0.651 cfu/g with Pearls capsules (p > 0.05). Total lactobacilli counts increased in both groups with no difference between the groups. However, the supplemented Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM decreased to baseline levels within 7 days after end of supplementation with gelatin capsules while 3.11 log cfu/g higher counts compared to baseline (p = 0.05) remained for Pearls. Targeted qPCR largely confirmed the trends observed by viable plate counts. Protecting the probiotic strains by Pearls encapsulation results in higher recovery rates of the supplemented lactobacilli and bifidobacteria in fecal samples and increased persistence, suggesting an improved survival and viability that might increase efficacy towards achieving desired health benefits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2016.
All research outputs
#4,488,907
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#1,046
of 8,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,020
of 320,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#11
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,165 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,418 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.