Effects of administration of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis GCL2505 on defecation frequency and bifidobacterial microbiota composition in humans
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in endogenous bifidobacteria and administered Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (B. lactis) GCL2505 (GCL2505) in the intestine after administration of GCL2505 by means of a randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind, cross-over study. An increase in the number of total bifidobacteria (the sum of B. bifidum, B. breve, B. longum subsp. longum, B. adolescentis, B. anglatum, B. catenulatum, B. pseudocatenulatum, B. dentium, B. longum subsp. infantis and B. lactis) in the feces were observed after administration of GCL2505 using species- and subspecies-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis. However, the number of endogenous bifidobacteria species (excluding B. lactis) remained unchanged. B. lactis also became the predominant bifidobacterial species. Taking into account the number of GCL2505 administered, the findings further suggested that GCL2505 proliferated in the intestine. In addition, the defecation frequency increased during GCL2505 administration compared with the placebo. Moreover, a single administration study (n=17) clearly demonstrated that GCL2505 successfully reached the intestine before proliferating at least 10-fold. This is the first report to show an increase in intestinal bifidobacteria, with no changes to the endogenous species, and improvements in constipation following proliferation of administered bifidobacteria.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous human studies that have administered other B. lactis strains have successfully confirmed the strain survival by measuring its stool concentration using culture methods and qPCR.
“Previous human studies that have administered other B. lactis strains have successfully confirmed the strain survival by measuring its stool concentration using culture methods and qPCR 6 42 .”
Previous studies that have investigated the effect of probiotics on the gut microbiota have shown increases in the species to which the probiotic belonged.
“previous studies that have investigated the effect of probiotics on the gut microbiota have shown increases in the species to which the probiotic belonged 6 7 .”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 73
- Authors
- Ishizuka, A., Tomizuka, K., Aoki, R., Nishijima, T., Saito, Y., Inoue, R., Ushida, K., Mawatari, T., & Ikeda, T.
- Affiliations
- Fuji Women's University (JP)
- Kyoto Prefectural University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Ishizuka, Akihiro
- Venue
- Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 587-591
- ISSN
- 1347-4421 (ISSN-L)
- 1389-1723
- OpenAlex
- W2009483198
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 4.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
- Keywords
- probiotics, stool frequency, constipation, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Bifidobacterium, Constipation, Defecation, Double-Blind Method, Feces, Female, Humans, Intestines, Male, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Colony Count, Microbial, Cross-Over Studies, Biodiversity, Metagenome, Young Adult, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
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