Cited by 631Probiotics and Fermented FoodsAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAquaculture disease management and microbiota

Monostrain, multistrain and multispecies probiotics—A comparison of functionality and efficacy

Open access
Timmerman, H.M., Koning, C.J.M., Mulder, L., Rombouts, F.M., Beynen, A.C.·2004·International Journal of Food Microbiology

Abstract

This literature review was carried out to make a comparison of functionality and efficacy between monostrain, multistrain and multispecies probiotics. A monostrain probiotic is defined as containing one strain of a certain species and consequently multistrain probiotics contain more than one strain of the same species or, at least of the same genus. Arbitrarily, the term multispecies probiotics is used for preparations containing strains that belong to one or preferentially more genera. Multispecies probiotics were superior in treating antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children. Growth performance and particularly mortality in broilers could be improved with multistrain probiotics. Mice were better protected against S. Typhimurium infection with a multistrain probiotic. A multispecies probiotic provided the best clearance of E. coli O157:H7 from lambs. Rats challenged with S. Enteritidis showed best post-challenge weight gains when treated with a multispecies probiotic. Possible mechanisms underlying the enhanced effects of probiotic mixtures are discussed. It is also emphasized that strains used in multistrain and multispecies probiotics should be compatible or, preferably, synergistic. The design and use of multistrain and multispecies probiotics should be encouraged.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.05.012

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Timmerman, H. M., Koning, C. J. M., Mulder, L., Rombouts, F. M., & Beynen, A. C.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Winclove Probiotics (Netherlands) (NL)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Timmerman, H.M.
Venue
International Journal of Food Microbiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-11
Volume
96
Issue
3
Pages
219-233
ISSN
0168-1605 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151043086
Cited by
631
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 27
FWCI
25.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Food Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Aquaculture disease management and microbiota
Keywords
probiotics, multi-strain probiotics, multispecies probiotics, probiotic combination, probiotic functionality, probiotic efficacy, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, broiler performance, Salmonella typhimurium, Salmonella Enteritidis, Escherichia coli O157:H7, lambs, strain compatibility, synergistic effect
MeSH terms
Animals, Antibiosis, Bacterial Infections, Humans, Lactobacillus, Species Specificity, Symbiosis, Treatment Outcome, Probiotics

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