Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 523

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 256 of the 256 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to select a probiotic? A review and update of methods and criteria

de Melo Pereira, Gilberto Vinícius, de Oliveira Coelho, Bruna, Magalhães Júnior, Antonio Irineudo, Thomaz-Soccol, Vanete, Soccol, Carlos Ricardo·2018·Biotechnology Advances
DOI 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.09.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

International competition within the dairy market and increasing public awareness about the importance of functional food consumption are providing new challenges for innovation in the probiotic sector. In this context, countless references are currently dedicated to the selection and characterization of new species and more specific strains of probiotic bacteria. In general, these studies adopt basic selection criteria established by the World Health Organization (WHO), including host-associated stress resistance, epithelium adhesion ability, and antimicrobial activity. These aspects are applied to ensure that the candidate probiotic could withstand the stressful conditions of the human digestive system and exert functional proprieties. However, it cannot be assumed that these novel microbial strains are capable of offering several biological benefits attributed to probiotics. Additionally, safety-associated selection criteria, such as plasmid-associated antibiotic resistance spreading and enterotoxin production, are often neglected. This article reviews the recent developments in the processes, strategies, and methods, such as anticarcinogenic, antidepression, antianxiety, antiobesity, antidiabetic, immunostimulatory, and cholesterol-lowering assessments, to select probiotic strains with the ultimate objective of assisting future probiotic microbe evaluation studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.09.003

Cites

256 of 256 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 523

Metadata

Authors
de Melo Pereira, G. V., de Oliveira Coelho, B., Magalhães Júnior, A. I., Thomaz-Soccol, V., & Soccol, C. R.
Venue
Biotechnology Advances
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
36
Issue
8
Pages
2060-2076
ISSN
0734-9750 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.09.003
OpenAlex
W2892926776
Cited by
523
References
256
FWCI
31.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.