Protection of candidate probiotic lactobacilli by Cheddar cheese matrix during simulated gastrointestinal digestion
Open accessAbstract
Previously, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lacticaseibacillus paracasei DPC7150 isolated from commercial Irish Cheddar cheeses were shown to exhibit probiotic traits in vitro. The objective of this study was to investigate how these strains survive in cheese and to explore whether a cheese or fermented milk matrix provided protection during simulated digestion using the INFOGEST 2.0 static digestion model. Manufacture of Cheddar cheese and fermented milks using these strains did not significantly impact cheese composition or ripening parameters. The Cheddar cheese matrix provided significantly more protection to non-starter lactic acid bacteria than the fermented milk. Pulsed-field gel patterns of isolates surviving simulated digestion confirmed the presence of the strains of interest. These data indicate that these two Lacticaseibacillus strains successfully persist in the cheese matrix during cheese ripening following which they are capable of surviving simulated digestion. This supports their potential for further development as candidate food-delivered probiotics.
Verified 2026-10-09 · 2 references not checked yet
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Cheddar cheese made with *Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus* DPC7102 or *Lacticaseibacillus paracasei* DPC7150 as adjuncts maintained high NSLAB populations during 180-day ripening without altering composition or overall proteolysis. In INFOGEST 2.0 simulated digestion, the Cheddar matrix protected both strains significantly better than fermented milk, with >1 log CFU/g lower reductions and higher percent survival.
Key findings
- Cheddar cheese protected both strains more than fermented milk during INFOGEST 2.0. For *Lc. rhamnosus* DPC7102, survival was 1.23% in Cheddar vs 0.12% in fermented milk, with log reductions of 1.93 vs 3.00 log CFU/g. For *Lc. paracasei* DPC7150, survival was 14.33% in Cheddar vs 0.46% in fermented milk, with log reductions of 0.86 vs 2.36 log CFU/g; the paper describes this as 30 times higher survival in the cheese matrix.
- Adjunct addition did not significantly affect cheese composition at day 14 (pH, moisture, salt, S/M, fat, FDM, MNFS) or total proteolysis. No significant differences were seen between cheese groups for % WSN/g or total FAA at any ripening point, although some individual amino acids differed, including aspartic acid at days 14, 30, 60, 135 and 180, and glycine at days 7, 14 and 30.
- The adjunct strains persisted at high levels during ripening. *Lc. rhamnosus* DPC7102 was present at 7.6 log CFU/g on day 1 and peaked at 8.6 log CFU/g at day 180; *Lc. paracasei* DPC7150 was present at 7.1 log CFU/g on day 1, peaked at 8.3 log CFU/g at day 90, and was 7.9 log CFU/g at day 180. Control cheese NSLAB were first detected at day 60 (2.0 log CFU/g) and reached 5.8 log CFU/g at day 180.
- PFGE after simulated digestion showed all 18 randomly selected colonies from the DPC7102 Cheddar matched the original DPC7102 strain. In the DPC7150 Cheddar, 4 of 18 profiles matched the original DPC7150 adjunct, while the other 14 matched DPC7102, indicating potential cross-contamination during manufacture and subsequent dominance of DPC7102.
Methods
- Pilot-scale Cheddar cheese trials were performed in triplicate with three vats: control (starter only), *Lc. rhamnosus* DPC7102 adjunct, and *Lc. paracasei* DPC7150 adjunct. Fermented milks were also made separately with each strain. Cheeses were ripened for 180 days and sampled at days 1, 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, 135 and 180.
- Composition was measured at day 14; microbial enumeration used LM17 agar for starter lactic acid bacteria and LBS agar for NSLAB; primary and secondary proteolysis were measured as % pH 4.6 WSN/g and free amino acids.
- Day-180 Cheddar and fermented milk samples were digested using the INFOGEST 2.0 static model with modifications, including gastric lipase. Post-digestion NSLAB were enumerated, and 18 colonies per cheese were randomly selected for PFGE. Statistical comparisons used ANOVA in IBM SPSS v26.
Limitations
- Stated limitations: The paper does not report a limitations section; it only states that there are no ethical issues or concerns relating to the work.
- Evident: Survival and protection were assessed only in vitro using the static INFOGEST 2.0 model; no human feeding, gut colonization, or health outcomes were measured.
- Evident: In the DPC7150 cheese, only 4/18 PFGE profiles matched the original adjunct while 14/18 matched DPC7102, indicating cross-contamination during manufacture and dominance of DPC7102; this complicates attribution of survival and protection specifically to DPC7150 in that cheese.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Manufacture of Cheddar cheese and fermented milks using Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 or Lc. paracasei DPC7150 did not significantly impact ripening parameters (proteolysis).
“Manufacture of Cheddar cheese and fermented milks using these strains did not significantly impact cheese composition or ripening parameters.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Proteolysis in cheese during ripening · plain
“However, no statistically significant differences were seen between cheese groups at any point during cheese ripening (Fig. 3).”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Proteolysis in cheese during ripening · plain
“No statistically significant differences were seen in mean levels of total FAA between cheese groups at any point during cheese ripening (Fig. 4).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Also stated in: § 3.3. Proteolysis in cheese during ripening · plain
- Findingown data
The two Lacticaseibacillus strains successfully persist in the cheese matrix during cheese ripening.
“These data indicate that these two Lacticaseibacillus strains successfully persist in the cheese matrix during cheese ripening following which they are capable of surviving simulated digestion.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2. SLAB and NSLAB populations during cheese ripening · plain
“Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 NSLAB numbers increased to eventually peak at 8.6 log CFU/g at Day 180, while the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 NSLAB peaked earlier at Day 90 with 8.3 log CFU/g and dropped off slightly for a final count of 7.9 log CFU/g at Day 180 (Fig. 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 3.2. SLAB and NSLAB populations during cheese ripening · plain
- Findingown data
No statistically significant differences in % WSN/g were seen between cheese groups at any point during cheese ripening.
“However, no statistically significant differences were seen between cheese groups at any point during cheese ripening (Fig. 3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
In general, NSLAB populations for both adjunct cheeses remained between 7.1 and 8.6 log CFU/g throughout ripening.
“In general, NSLAB populations for both cheeses remained between 7.1 and 8.6 log CFU/g throughout ripening (Fig. 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Adjuncts Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc. paracasei DPC7150 were present at 7.6 and 7.1 log CFU/g, respectively, at the Day 1 timepoint.
“Adjuncts Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150 added to their corresponding cheeses were present at 7.6 and 7.1 log CFU/g, respectively, at the Day 1 timepoint (Fig. 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data
Manufacture of Cheddar cheese and fermented milks using Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 or Lc. paracasei DPC7150 did not significantly impact cheese composition.
“Manufacture of Cheddar cheese and fermented milks using these strains did not significantly impact cheese composition or ripening parameters.”
- Also stated in: § 3.1. Cheese manufacture and composition · plain
“No statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences in cheese composition as measured by pH, moisture, salt, salt in moisture (S/M), fat, fat in dry matter (FDM) or moisture in non-fat substances (MNFS) were observed between the different cheeses (Table 1).”
- Also stated in: § Table 1 · hedged
“Cheese composition was analysed at day 14 and no significant differences between cheese types were found, indicating that the addition of the adjuncts of interest had no effect on cheese composition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 3.1. Cheese manufacture and composition · plain
- Findingown data
Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns of isolates surviving simulated digestion confirmed the presence of the strains of interest.
“Pulsed-field gel patterns of isolates surviving simulated digestion confirmed the presence of the strains of interest.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Proteolysis in cheese during ripening · plain
“In a supplementary experiment, PFGE profiles revealed the persistence of the original adjuncts in the Cheddar cheese 12 months postproduction, to varying degrees, that were also capable of surviving simulated digestion.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 3.3. Proteolysis in cheese during ripening · plain
- Findingreasoning
NSLAB counts in all three cheeses differed significantly at each timepoint.
“NSLAB counts in all three cheeses differed significantly at each timepoint, which is likely due to the extremely low NSLAB counts in the Control cheese.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Day 1 SLAB populations of L. lactis were detected in all three Cheddar cheese trials at >9 log CFU/g, only dropping below this at 90 days of ripening.
“Day 1 SLAB populations of L. lactis were detected in all three Cheddar cheese trials at > 9 log CFU/g, only dropping below this at 90 days of ripening (Fig. 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The Cheddar cheese matrix provided significantly more protection to non-starter lactic acid bacteria than the fermented milk during simulated gastrointestinal digestion.
“The Cheddar cheese matrix provided significantly more protection to non-starter lactic acid bacteria than the fermented milk.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Proteolysis in cheese during ripening · plain
“In both cases, the lacticaseibacilli in the Cheddar cheese matrix exhibited a significantly higher survival rate post INFOGEST 2.0 than their fermented milk counterpart (Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The modifications made to the INFOGEST 2.0 protocol do not compromise its validity as a model of human gastrointestinal digestion.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Proteolysis in cheese during ripening · plain
- Findingown data
No statistically significant differences were seen in mean levels of total FAA between cheese groups at any point during cheese ripening.
“No statistically significant differences were seen in mean levels of total FAA between cheese groups at any point during cheese ripening (Fig. 4).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The two Lacticaseibacillus strains are capable of surviving simulated digestion after persisting in the cheese matrix.
“These data indicate that these two Lacticaseibacillus strains successfully persist in the cheese matrix during cheese ripening following which they are capable of surviving simulated digestion.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Survival through the INFOGEST 2.0 simulated digestion model is indicative of the ability of these strains to survive human gastrointestinal transit and thus of their potential as food-delivered probiotics.
- Findingown data
SLAB counts between cheeses only differed significantly at days 135 and 180 of ripening.
“SLAB counts between cheeses only differed significantly at days 135 and 180 of ripening.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
SLAB counts at 180 days ripening were 6.3, 5.2 and 5.3 log CFU/g for the Control, Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc. paracasei DPC7150 cheeses, respectively.
“The SLAB counts at 180 days ripening were 6.3, 5.2 and 5.3 log CFU/g for the Control, Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150 cheeses, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 NSLAB numbers increased to peak at 8.6 log CFU/g at Day 180.
“Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 NSLAB numbers increased to eventually peak at 8.6 log CFU/g at Day 180, while the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 NSLAB peaked earlier at Day 90 with 8.3 log CFU/g and dropped off slightly for a final count of 7.9 log CFU/g at Day 180 (Fig. 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For Cheddar cheese produced with the adjunct Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102, all 18 random colonies picked exhibit the same DNA profile as the original pure strain.
“For Cheddar cheese produced with the adjunct Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102, all 18 random colonies picked exhibit the same DNA profile as the original pure strain (Fig. S7A).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The survival rate of Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 was 10 times higher in Cheddar cheese (1.23%) than in the fermented milk (0.12%).
“The survival rate of Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 was 10 times higher in Cheddar cheese (1.23%) than in the fermented milk (0.12%), while the survival rate of Lc. paracasei DPC7150 was 30 times higher when embedded in the cheese matrix (Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Day 30 showed a significant difference in the microbial metabolite γ aminobutyric acid (GABA), which was greater in cheeses produced with the adjunct cultures.
“Additionally, day 30 showed a significant difference in the microbial metabolite γ aminobutyric acid (GABA), which was greater in cheeses produced with the adjunct cultures (Fig. S3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Tryptophan was no longer detected in any cheese from Day 30 onward.
“Tryptophan was no longer detected in any cheese from Day 30 onward”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The survival rate of Lc. paracasei DPC7150 was 30 times higher when embedded in the cheese matrix than in fermented milk.
“The survival rate of Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 was 10 times higher in Cheddar cheese (1.23%) than in the fermented milk (0.12%), while the survival rate of Lc. paracasei DPC7150 was 30 times higher when embedded in the cheese matrix (Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
The initial populations of Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150 were >7.7 log CFU/g of cheese and fermented milk.
“The initial populations of Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150 were > 7.7 log CFU/g of cheese and fermented milk.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Four of the 18 profiles in the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 Cheddar matched that of the original adjunct.
“Four of the 18 profiles in the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 Cheddar matched that of the original adjunct (Fig. S7B).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Significant differences in NSLAB populations were seen between the three cheeses at each timepoint.
“Significant differences were seen between the three cheeses at each timepoint.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The other 14 profiles seen among the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 Cheddar isolates appear to match the original Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 strain profile.
“The other 14 profiles seen among the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 Cheddar isolates appear to match the original Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 strain profile, indicating potential cross contamination during cheese manufacture and subsequent dominance of DPC7102 following extended ripening (Fig. S7B).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The population of cheese made with Lc. paracasei DPC7150 as adjunct was composed of over 20% of the added Lc. paracasei DPC7150 strain.
“while the population of the cheese made with Lc. paracasei DPC7150 as adjunct was composed of over 20% of the added Lc. paracasei DPC7150 strain.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
An in vitro study indicated that the cheese matrix was more effective at protecting a probiotic Lacticaseibacillus casei strain at stomach pH 2.0 in comparison to yogurt.
“An in vitro study indicated that the cheese matrix was more effective at protecting a probiotic Lacticaseibacillus casei strain at stomach pH (2.0) in comparison to yogurt (Sharp, McMahon, & Broadbent, 2008).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sharp et al., 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
These two Lacticaseibacillus strains have potential for further development as candidate food-delivered probiotics.
“This supports their potential for further development as candidate food-delivered probiotics.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Survival through the INFOGEST 2.0 simulated digestion model is indicative of the ability of these strains to survive human gastrointestinal transit and thus of their potential as food-delivered probiotics.
- Interpretationown data
The significant differences in NSLAB counts at each timepoint are likely due to the extremely low NSLAB counts in the Control cheese.
“NSLAB counts in all three cheeses differed significantly at each timepoint, which is likely due to the extremely low NSLAB counts in the Control cheese.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Both adjunct strains were able to maintain high population levels throughout the ripening period.
“Thus, both adjunct strains were able to maintain high population levels throughout the ripening period.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
These strains can survive at sufficient levels once ingested to potentially impact on human health.
“Thus, these strains can survive at sufficient levels once ingested to potentially impact on human health.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Survival in the INFOGEST 2.0 in vitro digestion model predicts survival in the human gastrointestinal tract and potential health impact.
- Interpretationcitation
The overall findings presented here are in agreement with those of Sharp and colleagues (2008) concerning the potential of Cheddar cheese as a promising probiotic vehicle.
“While these log reductions vary, the overall findings presented here are in agreement with those of Sharp and colleagues (2008) concerning the potential of Cheddar cheese as a promising probiotic vehicle (Sharp et al., 2008).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sharp et al., 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
This study is the first to utilise INFOGEST 2.0 with gastric lipase to determine survival of potentially beneficial microorganisms through the upper digestive system.
“Thus, this study is the first to utilise the INFOGEST 2.0 with gastric lipase (relevant due to the high fat content of Cheddar) to determine survival of potentially beneficial microorganisms through the upper digestive system.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
These counts satisfy the established criteria of probiotic microbes being present at a minimum 6-7 log CFU/g in the end product.
“both values of which satisfy the established criteria of probiotic microbes being present at a minimum 6-7 log CFU/g in the end product”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 37
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 32
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe Control cheese NSLAB population was only detected at Day 60 at 2.0 log CFU/g and reached 5.8 log CFU/g at the end of ripening.
“In contrast, the Control cheese NSLAB population (to which no adjunct cultures were added) was only detected at Day 60 (at 2.0 log CFU/g) and reached a count of 5.8 log CFU/g at the end of the ripening process (Fig. 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataLevels of WSN increased for all three cheeses as ripening time progressed.
“Levels of WSN (an indicator of primary proteolysis) increased for all three cheeses as ripening time progressed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataLc. paracasei DPC7150 NSLAB peaked at Day 90 with 8.3 log CFU/g and dropped to 7.9 log CFU/g at Day 180.
“Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 NSLAB numbers increased to eventually peak at 8.6 log CFU/g at Day 180, while the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 NSLAB peaked earlier at Day 90 with 8.3 log CFU/g and dropped off slightly for a final count of 7.9 log CFU/g at Day 180 (Fig. 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataA significant increase in % WSN/g was observed in the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 cheese from Day 30 onward, and Control and Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses exhibited significantly higher % WSN/g levels from Day 60 onwards.
“A significant increase in % WSN/g was observed in the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 cheese from Day 30 onward (p ≤ 0.05), and Control and Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses exhibited significantly higher % WSN/g levels from Day 60 onwards.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAspartic acid was the most variable amino acid between the three cheeses, and differed significantly at days 14, 30, 60, 135 and 180.
“Aspartic acid was the most variable amino acid between the three cheeses, and differed significantly at days 14, 30, 60, 135 and 180.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataMost individual amino acid concentrations did not differ significantly between the three cheeses, although some exceptions were observed at various points during cheese ripening.
“Most individual amino acid concentrations did not differ significantly between the three cheeses, although some exceptions were observed at various points during cheese ripening.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTotal FAA increased significantly from Day 7 onward for the Control and Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses, and from Day 14 onward for the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 cheese.
“Total FAA increased significantly from Day 7 onward for the Control and Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses, and from Day 14 onward for the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 cheese.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTotal FAA concentration significantly increased in all Cheddar types, from Day 7 in Control and Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses and from Day 14 in Lc. paracasei DPC7150 cheese, but no significant differences were observed in total FAA between cheese types.
“The total concentration of FAA significantly (p ≤ 0.05) increased in all Cheddar types, from Day 7 in the Control and Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses and from Day 14 in the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 cheese, but no significant differences were observed in total FAA between cheese types.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenDetection of tryptophan ceased at day 30 for all cheeses.
“Detection of tryptophan ceased at day 30 for all cheeses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataInitial SLAB counts were high (approximately 9 log CFU/g) and remained at these levels until Day 90, then decreased to final counts between 5.2 and 6.3 log CFU/g.
“initial SLAB counts were high (≈9 log CFU/g) and remained at these levels until the 90 Day time point, and then began to decrease to final counts of between 5.2 and 6.3 log CFU/g.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data% WSN/g increased significantly as ripening time progressed, with significant increase from Day 30 onward in Lc. paracasei DPC7150 cheese, followed by Control and Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses from Day 60 onward.
“% WSN/g increased significantly as ripening time progressed, with a significant increase (p ≤ 0.05) from Day 30 onward in Lc. paracasei DPC7150 cheese being observed, followed by the Control and Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses from Day 60 onward.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataLog reductions in CFU/g were greater in the fermented milk matrix for both Lacticaseibacillus strains, with a 1 and 1.5 log greater reduction in the fermented milk matrix than the Cheddar matrix for the Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150, respectively.
“Log reductions in CFU/g were also greater in the fermented milk matrix for both Lacticaseibacillus strains, with a 1 and 1.5 log greater reduction in the fermented milk matrix than the Cheddar matrix for the Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150, respectively (Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataGlycine concentrations differed significantly at three timepoints (days 7, 14 and 30).
“Glycine concentrations differed significantly at three timepoints (days 7, 14 and 30).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn this study, % WSN/g increased as maturation progressed, and no significant differences in % WSN/g between Cheddar types were observed.
“In this study, we observed that the levels of % WSN/g increased as maturation progressed and no significant differences in % WSN/g between Cheddar types were observed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe two Cheddars with NSLAB adjuncts reached numbers over 7 log CFU/g initially and remained at this level throughout the study.
“In contrast, the other two Cheddars had NSLAB adjuncts added to them, both of which reached numbers over 7 log CFU/g initially and remained at this level for the duration of the study.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn Control cheese, quantifiable NSLAB populations appeared only at Day 60, then climbed to 5.8 log CFU/g.
“When monitoring levels of NSLAB in the Control cheese, quantifiable populations only appeared at Day 60, after which they continued to climb and eventually reached 5.8 log CFU/g.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe only significant differences in SLAB counts between Cheddar types were at Days 135 and 180, with Control cheese at Day 180 having approximately 1 log higher SLAB population than cheeses containing adjunct cultures.
“The only significant differences seen between Cheddar types were observed at Days 135 and 180, with the Control cheese at Day 180 having ≈1 log higher population of SLAB than the cheeses containing the adjunct cultures.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataCheddar cheese protected lactobacilli to a significantly greater extent than fermented milk counterparts, with >1 log CFU/g difference seen between matrices in both cases.
“Cheddar cheese was shown to protect lactobacilli to a significantly greater extent than the fermented milk counterparts, with > 1 log CFU/g difference seen between matrices in both cases.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
“When comparing the survival of strains during the INFOGEST 2.0 static digestion model, Cheddar cheese proved a superior dairy matrix when compared to fermented milk grown with the same lactobacilli strains.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataWhile some differences in individual amino acid levels were observed, the majority did not differ significantly between the three Cheddars, and no differences were seen between cheeses when total amino acid levels were examined.
“While some differences in individual amino acid levels were observed, the majority did not differ significantly between the three different Cheddars and no differences were seen between cheeses when total amino acid levels were examined.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataExcluding the initial timepoint, levels of GABA were always higher in Cheddars containing Lacticaseibacillus adjuncts, although this difference was only significant at day 30.
“Excluding the initial timepoint, levels of GABA were always higher in the Cheddars containing the Lacticaseibacillus adjuncts, although this difference was only significant at day 30.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataOverall, the addition of Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 or Lc. paracasei DPC7150 did not affect SLAB proliferation or cheese composition when compared to the adjunct-free Cheddar control.
“Overall, the addition of Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 or Lc.paracasei DPC7150 did not affect SLAB proliferation or cheese composition when compared to the adjunct-free Cheddar control.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe potentially probiotic lactobacilli survived at >7.7 log CFU/g after 12 months of cheese maturation and >6.5 log CFU/g following INFOGEST 2.0 simulated digestion.
“The log CFU/g counts of the potentially probiotic lactobacilli were > 7.7 following 12 months of cheese maturation and > 6.5 following the INFOGEST 2.0 simulated digestion”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
“Cheddar cheese produced in this study contained NSLAB with proven in vitro probiotic traits that were both capable of surviving at 10 7 CFU/g during cheese ripening and could also survive at levels of 10 6 CFU/g following simulated digestion.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe NSLAB population of cheese with Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 adjunct was homogeneous and composed only of the Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 strain.
“The NSLAB population of cheese with Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 adjunct was found to be homogeneous and composed only of the Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 strain”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataGlycine levels differed significantly between cheeses at Days 7, 14 and 30, with Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses tending to have higher concentrations than either control or Lc. paracasei DPC7150 cheese, but were similar for remaining timepoints.
“Glycine levels differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05) between cheeses at Days 7, 14 and 30, with Lc. rhamnosus DPC7102 cheeses tending to have higher concentrations than either the control or the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 cheese but were similar for the remaining timepoints.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationCheese may be a more suitable vehicle for microbes than yogurt.
“It has been suggested that cheese may be a more suitable vehicle for microbes than yogurt (Gardiner, Stanton, Lynch, Collins, Fitzgerald, & Ross, 1999).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gardiner et al., 1999 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationNSLAB grow in cheese during ripening, normally attaining populations in excess of 10^7 CFU/g, and thus are likely to remain viable to the levels required by regulatory agencies until the time of consumption.
“Cheese as the matrix of choice for probiotics of NSLAB origin is further enhanced by the fact that NSLAB grow in cheese during ripening, normally attaining populations in excess of 10 7 colony forming units per gram and thus, are likely to remain viable to the levels required by the regulatory agencies until the time of consumption (Leeuwendaal et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leeuwendaal et al., 2021 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationVarious members of the Lactobacillaceae family, which are common NSLAB of cheeses, have performed favourably in terms of probiotic potential.
“Various members of the Lactobacillaceae family, which are common NSLAB of cheeses, have performed favourably in terms of probiotic potential, some of which were originally isolated from cheese and other dairy sources (Maragkoudakis, Zoumpopoulou, Miaris, Kalantzopoulos, Pot, & Tsakalidou, 2006;Fijan, 2014).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationCheese generally has a higher pH than yogurt, which imparts less stress upon microbes while in the food matrix.
“Generally, cheese has a higher pH than yogurt which imparts less stress upon microbes while in the food matrix, and the high fat content offers additional protection during transit through the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) (Flach, van der Waal, van den Nieuwboer, Claassen, & Larsen, 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Flach et al., 2018 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationSufficient numbers of probiotic bacteria must be present and viable in the final food product at the time of consumption to have the potential to elicit a positive health response, with the minimum requirement usually set at between 10^6 and 10^7 CFU per gram of food.
“Various organisations involved in food regulatory affairs have stated that sufficient numbers of probiotic bacteria must be present and viable in the final food product at the time of consumption to have the potential to elicit a positive health response, with the minimum requirement usually being set at between 10 6 -10 7 colony forming units per gram of food (Leroy, & De Vuyst, 2014).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leroy & De Vuyst, 2014
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationLacticaseibacillus rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lacticaseibacillus paracasei DPC7150, isolated from commercial Irish Cheddar cheeses, exhibit probiotic traits in vitro.
“Previously, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lacticaseibacillus paracasei DPC7150 isolated from commercial Irish Cheddar cheeses were shown to exhibit probiotic traits in vitro.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leeuwendaal et al., 2021 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSome cheeses contain non-starter lactic acid bacteria (NSLAB) that have probiotic properties.
“Some cheeses have also been found to contain non-starter lactic acid bacteria (NSLAB) that have probiotic properties (Settanni, & Moschetti, 2010;Leeuwendaal, Stanton, O'Toole, & Beresford, 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Settanni & Moschetti, 2010
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Leeuwendaal et al., 2021 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe high fat content of cheese offers additional protection to microbes during transit through the gastrointestinal tract.
“Generally, cheese has a higher pH than yogurt which imparts less stress upon microbes while in the food matrix, and the high fat content offers additional protection during transit through the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) (Flach, van der Waal, van den Nieuwboer, Claassen, & Larsen, 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Flach et al., 2018 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenSimulated digestions were performed in triplicate and repeated three times.
“Simulated digestions were performed in triplicate and repeated three times.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationMRS and LBS media are designed to support the growth of lacticaseibacilli; LBS contains inhibitors of lactococci and provides a low pH environment tolerated by lactobacilli.
“MRS and LBS, based on the work of Rogosa et al (1951) are designed to support the growth of lacticaseibacilli.The key difference between both media is that LBS contains ammonium citrate, sodium acetate, acetic acid and ferrous sulphate that act as inhibitors of lactococci and provide a low pH environment which is tolerated by lactobacilli.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rogosa et al., 1951 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisereasoningWhere high populations of lactococci are expected in conjunction with lacticaseibacilli, such as in cheese, LBS is the medium of choice.
“Where high populations of lactococci are expected in conjunction with lacticaseibacilli; such as is the case with cheese LBS is the medium of choice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rogosa et al., 1951 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSecondary proteolysis occurs when proteinases and peptidases degrade polypeptides from primary proteolysis into smaller peptides and free amino acids, which can be quantified in the WSN extract.
“Secondary proteolysis occurs when proteinases and peptidases degrade the polypeptides produced in primary proteolysis into smaller peptides and free amino acids, which can be quantified in the WSN extract (Rank, Grappin, & Olson, 1985).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rank, Grappin, & Olson, 1985 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPhysical and chemical stresses during cheese production and maturation impede the ability of starter lactic acid bacteria (SLAB) to survive.
“While SLAB are initially added for acidification of milk, the physical and chemical stresses experienced during cheese production and maturation impede their ability to survive (Ganesan, Weimer, Pinzon, Dao Kong, Rompato, Brothersen, & McMahon, 2014;Choi, In Lee, Rackerby, Frojen, Goddik, Ha, Do, & Park, 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Ganesan, Weimer, Pinzon, Dao Kong, Rompato, Brothersen, & McMahon, 2014
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Choi, In Lee, Rackerby, Frojen, Goddik, Ha, Do, & Park, 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationIn primary proteolysis, casein molecules are broken down into smaller polypeptides, primarily by rennet (chymosin) remaining in the cheese curd post production.
“In primary proteolysis, the casein molecules are broken down into smaller polypeptides, which is primarily carried out by the rennet (the coagulant, chymosin) that remains in the cheese curd post production (Fox, Wallace, Morgan, Lynch, Niland, & Tobin, 1996;Soodam, Ong, Powell, Kentish, & Gras, 2015).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Fox, Wallace, Morgan, Lynch, Niland, & Tobin, 1996
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Soodam, Ong, Powell, Kentish, & Gras, 2015
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAmino acids released within the cheese matrix can be metabolised by the microbiome, resulting in formation of additional flavour and aroma active compounds.
“In addition to contributing to the organoleptic properties of the cheese, the amino acids released within the cheese matrix can be metabolised by the microbiome resulting in the formation of additional flavour and aroma active compounds (Ardö et al., 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ardö et al., 2017
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenPure strains of both the Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150 were run in their respective gels as controls.
“Pure strains of both the Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150 were run in their respective gels as controls.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationProteolysis involves hydrolysis of cheese casein to smaller peptides and amino acids, which accumulate during ripening and contribute to texture and overall flavour.
“Proteolysis involves the hydrolysis of cheese casein to smaller peptides and amino acids which accumulate during cheese ripening and contributes the texture and overall flavour of the finished product (Ardö, McSweeney, Magboul, Upadhyay, & Fox, 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ardö, McSweeney, Magboul, Upadhyay, & Fox, 2017
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationVariation in environmental conditions such as pH and S/M could impact on behaviour of the adjuncts during cheese ripening and simulated gastric digestion.
“This is important as variation in composition, usually measured by the four parameters of pH, S/M, FDM and MNFS impacts on cheese quality and variation in environmental conditions such as pH and S/M could impact on behaviour of the adjuncts during cheese ripening and simulated gastric digestion (Gilles, & Lawrence, 1973).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gilles & Lawrence, 1973
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAs pH and lactose decrease in aging Cheddar, SLAB populations decline and are outcompeted by non-starter lactic acid bacteria (NSLAB), which can reach up to 10^8 CFU/g in mature cheese.
“As pH values and lactose concentrations decrease in the aging Cheddar, SLAB populations begin to decline and are outcompeted by the more metabolically versatile NSLAB, which can reach numbers as high as 10 8 CFU/g in mature cheese (Ong et al., 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ong et al., 2017
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe other 14 profiles indicate potential cross contamination during cheese manufacture and subsequent dominance of DPC7102 following extended ripening.
“The other 14 profiles seen among the Lc.paracasei DPC7150 Cheddar isolates appear to match the original Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 strain profile, indicating potential cross contamination during cheese manufacture and subsequent dominance of DPC7102 following extended ripening (Fig. S7B).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationVariation in cheese composition, usually measured by pH, S/M, FDM and MNFS, impacts on cheese quality.
“This is important as variation in composition, usually measured by the four parameters of pH, S/M, FDM and MNFS impacts on cheese quality and variation in environmental conditions such as pH and S/M could impact on behaviour of the adjuncts during cheese ripening and simulated gastric digestion (Gilles, & Lawrence, 1973).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gilles & Lawrence, 1973
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataCheddar cheese trials were performed in triplicate.
“Cheddar cheese trials were performed in triplicate on January 22nd, January 30th, and February 12th (2019) at pilot scale (Moorepark Technology Limited, Teagasc Moorepark).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenLambda PFG Ladder was loaded with every gel as a reference marker.
“Lambda PFG Ladder (New England BioLabs® Inc.) was loaded with every gel as a reference marker.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMicrobial population shifts in cheese can influence biochemistry, particularly proteolysis and formation of free amino acids during ripening.
“Microbial population shifts are important in cheese as they have the potential to influence biochemistry, in particular proteolysis and formation of FAA during cheese ripening (Smit, Smit, & Engels, 2005).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Smit, Smit, & Engels, 2005 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Study design and conductnone givenAll measurements and experiments were carried out in triplicate.
“All measurements were carried out in triplicate.”
- Also stated in: § 2.6. Primary and secondary proteolysis · plain
“All experiments were carried out in triplicate.”
- Also stated in: § 2.7. Microbial analysis · plain
“All experiments were carried out in triplicate.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Also stated in: § 2.6. Primary and secondary proteolysis · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAccumulation of tryptophan can lead to its catabolism by microorganisms in cheese, producing flavour defects described as faecal, putrid and unclean.
“which is generally desirable as accumulation of this amino acid can lead to its catabolism by microorganisms in the cheese leading to the production of flavour defects, including flavours described as faecal, putrid and unclean (Gummalla, & Broadbent, 1999;Ummadi, & Weimer, 2001).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Gummalla, & Broadbent, 1999
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Ummadi, & Weimer, 2001
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningMost of these polypeptides are soluble in water at pH 4.6, and thus water-soluble nitrogen at pH 4.6 is a useful indicator of primary proteolysis.
“Most of these polypeptides are soluble in water at pH 4.6 and thus nitrogen levels soluble in water at pH 4.6 are a useful indicator of primary proteolysis.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationAs of now, only one previous study has attempted to digest cheese using this model and did not examine microbial survival, instead focusing on peptide profiles of Prato cheese.
“As of now, only one previous study has attempted to digest cheese using this model and did not examine microbial survival, instead focusing on the impact of simulated digestion on peptide profiles of Prato cheese (Baptista, Salgaço, Sivieri, & Gigante, 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Baptista, Salgaço, Sivieri, & Gigante, 2020
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe addition of the adjuncts did not have a large effect on primary or secondary proteolysis, with neither primary nor secondary proteolysis differing significantly from the control except for a few amino acids.
“Thus, the addition of the adjuncts did not have a large effect on primary or secondary proteolysis.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
“Additionally, neither primary nor secondary proteolysis differed significantly with the control, with the exception of a few amino acids.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAspartic acid can be broken down to give a buttery flavour (diacetyl) but may also affect the chemistry of other highly volatile sulfuric compounds.
“Aspartic acid can be broken down to give a buttery flavour (diacetyl) but may also affect the chemistry of other highly volatile sulfuric compounds (Ardö, 2006).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ardö, 2006 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationINFOGEST was further improved to include an oral phase and lipase enzyme during the gastric phase (INFOGEST 2.0).
“This is referred to as the INFOGEST method, and was further improved upon to include an oral phase and lipase enzyme during the gastric phase (INFOGEST 2.0) (Brodkorb et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brodkorb et al., 2019 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationGenerally, probiotic products are expected to contain a minimum concentration of 10^6 CFU/g prior to ingestion, and 10^8-10^9 CFU/g should be consumed daily to ensure health benefits.
“Generally, probiotic products are expected to contain a minimum concentration of 10 6 CFU/g prior to ingestion, and that 10 8 -10 9 CFU/g should be consumed on a daily basis to ensure any health benefits to take effect (Kechagia, Basoulis, Konstantopoulou, Dimitriadi, Gyftopoulou, Skarmoutsou, & Fakiri, 2013).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kechagia, Basoulis, Konstantopoulou, Dimitriadi, Gyftopoulou, Skarmoutsou, & Fakiri, 2013
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationGABA is a neurotransmitter and important bioactive compound with many physiological functions, and many LAB from fermented foods are capable of generating it.
“GABA is a neurotransmitter and important bioactive compound with a plethora of physiological functions, and many LAB have been identified from fermented foods that are capable of generating this compound (for a review, see Cui, Miao, Niyaphorn, & Qu, 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cui, Miao, Niyaphorn, & Qu, 2020
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationSharp et al. (2008) showed a reduction of 2 log CFU/g of Lb. casei 334e when exposed to a 30-minute acid stress test in a low-fat Cheddar matrix, while the same strain showed a 6 log CFU/g reduction following the same acid test in a yogurt matrix.
“Sharp et al. (2008) showed a reduction of 2 log CFU/g of Lb. casei 334e when exposed to a 30-minute acid stress test in a low-fat Cheddar matrix, while the same strain showed a much higher 6 log CFU/g reduction following the same acid test in a yogurt matrix (Sharp et al., 2008).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sharp et al., 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThis study demonstrated that two Lacticaseibacillus strains previously shown to express probiotic traits can survive in a Cheddar cheese matrix during ripening when added as an adjunct and can survive simulated gastric digestion using INFOGEST 2.0.
“This study demonstrated the ability of two Lacticaseibacillus strains previously shown to express probiotic traits (Leeuwendaal et al., 2021) to survive in a Cheddar cheese matrix during ripening when added as an adjunct and to have the ability to survive simulated gastric digestion using the INFOGEST 2.0 model.”
- Also stated in: § Table 1 · boosted
“These data demonstrate that both strains are capable of surviving in a Cheddar matrix for at least 12 months of ripening, and that both are capable of surviving simulated gastric digestion.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leeuwendaal et al., 2021 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Also stated in: § Table 1 · boosted
The paper relies on this without support.
Survival through the INFOGEST 2.0 simulated digestion model is indicative of the ability of these strains to survive human gastrointestinal transit and thus of their potential as food-delivered probiotics.
“This supports their potential for further development as candidate food-delivered probiotics.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The modifications made to the INFOGEST 2.0 protocol do not compromise its validity as a model of human gastrointestinal digestion.
“digested in vitro using the INFOGEST 2.0 protocol, with some modifications (Brodkorb et al., 2019).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Survival in the INFOGEST 2.0 in vitro digestion model predicts survival in the human gastrointestinal tract and potential health impact.
“Thus, these strains can survive at sufficient levels once ingested to potentially impact on human health.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The INFOGEST 2.0 static digestion model adequately simulates human upper gastrointestinal digestion for Cheddar cheese and fermented milk.
“In order to determine the suitability of Cheddar cheese as a microbe delivery matrix, INFOGEST 2.0 was employed on both the Lc.rhamnosus DPC7102 and Lc.paracasei DPC7150 cheeses, as well as fermented milk samples inoculated with the two Lacticaseibacillus strains of interest.”
“Thus, this study is the first to utilise the INFOGEST 2.0 with gastric lipase (relevant due to the high fat content of Cheddar) to determine survival of potentially beneficial microorganisms through the upper digestive system.”
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?
Some cheeses are inoculated with live cultures of L. acidophilus and bifidobacterium, and blue cheese and aged cheeses are good sources of probiotics.
“Some cheeses are inoculated with live cultures of L. acidophilus and bifidobacterium. Other cheeses that are good sources of probiotics are blue cheese and aged cheeses [188,189].”
From The Potential Impact of Probiotics on Human Health: An Update on Their Health-Promoting Properties (2024) · cites this paper as [189]
Cites
Minekus, M., Alminger, M., Alvito, P., Ballance, S., Bohn, T., Bourlieu, C., Carrière, F., Boutrou, R., Corredig, M., Dupont, D., et al. (2014) · Food Funct. · doi:10.1039/c3fo60702j · Cited by 5,824 · see citing works
INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food digestion
Brodkorb, A., Egger, L., Alminger, M., Alvito, P., Assunção, R., Ballance, S., Bohn, T., Bourlieu-Lacanal, C., Boutrou, R., Carrière, F., et al. (2019) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-018-0119-1 · Cited by 5,199 · see citing works
Zheng, J., Wittouck, S., Salvetti, E., Franz, C. M. A. P., Harris, H. M. B., Mattarelli, P., O’Toole, P. W., Pot, B., Vandamme, P., Walter, J., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.004107 · Cited by 3,313 · see citing works
Self-citationImproved medium for lactic streptococci and their bacteriophages
Terzaghi, B. E., & Sandine, W. E. (1975) · Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1128/am.29.6.807-813.1975 · Cited by 2,339 · see citing works
Microorganisms with Claimed Probiotic Properties: An Overview of Recent Literature
Fijan, S. (2014) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph110504745 · Cited by 1,059 · see citing works
Health Benefits of Probiotics: A Review
Kechagia, M., Basoulis, D., Konstantopoulou, S. M., Dimitriadi, D., Gyftopoulou, K., Skarmoutsou, N., & Fakiri, E. (2013) · ISRN Nutrition · doi:10.5402/2013/481651 · Cited by 1,014 · see citing works
Flavour formation by lactic acid bacteria and biochemical flavour profiling of cheese products
Smit, G., Smit, B. A., & Engels, W. J. M. (2005) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.fmrre.2005.04.002 · Cited by 949 · see citing works
(FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F. (2012) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2740 · Cited by 904 · see citing works
Recent advances in cheese microbiology
Beresford, T. P., Fitzsimons, N. A., Brennan, N. L., & Cogan, T. M. (2001) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/s0958-6946(01)00056-5 · Cited by 823 · see citing works
Self-citationA selective medium for the isolation and enumeration of oral and fecal lactobacilli
Rogosa, M., Mitchell, J. A., & Wiseman, R. F. (1951) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.62.1.132-133.1951 · Cited by 653 · see citing works
Probiotic potential of Lactobacillus strains isolated from dairy products
Maragkoudakis, P. A., Zoumpopoulou, G., Miaris, C., Kalantzopoulos, G., Pot, B., & Tsakalidou, E. (2006) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.02.009 · Cited by 618 · see citing works
Flavour formation by amino acid catabolism
Ardö, Y. (2006) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2005.11.005 · Cited by 568 · see citing works
Rivera‐Espinoza, Y., & Navarro, Y. G. (2008) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2008.06.008 · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Non-starter lactic acid bacteria used to improve cheese quality and provide health benefits
Settanni, L., & Moschetti, G. (2010) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2010.05.023 · Cited by 456 · see citing works
Production of Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid from Lactic Acid Bacteria: A Systematic Review
Cui, Y., Miao, K., Niyaphorn, S., & Qu, X. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21030995 · Cited by 451 · see citing works
Incorporation of bifidobacteria into cheeses: challenges and rewards
Boylston, T. D., Vinderola, C. G., Ghoddusi, H. B., & Reinheimer, J. A. (2003) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2003.08.008 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Shori, A. B. (2015) · Food Bioscience · doi:10.1016/j.fbio.2015.11.001 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
Viability of probiotic microorganisms in cheese during production and storage: a review
Karimi, R., Mortazavian, A. M., & da Cruz, A. G. (2011) · Dairy Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s13594-011-0005-x · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Development of a Probiotic Cheddar Cheese Containing Human-Derived Lactobacillus paracasei Strains
Gardiner, G. E., Ross, R. P., Collins, J. K., Fitzgerald, G. F., & Stanton, C. (1998) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.64.6.2192-2199.1998 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Self-citationGobbetti, M., De Angelis, M., Di Cagno, R., Mancini, L., & Fox, P. F. (2015) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.07.016 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Acceleration of cheese ripening
Fox, P. F., Wallace, J. M., Morgan, S. M., Lynch, C. M., Niland, E. J., & Tobin, J. T. (1996) · Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · doi:10.1007/bf00395937 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Phillips, M., Kailasapathy, K., & Tran, L. T. (2006) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.12.009 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Gardiner, G., Stanton, C., Lynch, P. B., Collins, J. K., Fitzgerald, G., & Ross, R. P. (1999) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(99)75363-4 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Self-citationSaxelin, M., Lassig, A., Karjalainen, H., Tynkkynen, S., Surakka, A., Vapaatalo, H., Järvenpää, S. K., Korpela, R., Mutanen, M. L., & Hatakka, K. (2010) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.10.009 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Shori, A. B. (2015) · Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.bcab.2015.09.010 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Flach, J., van der Waal, M. B., van den Nieuwboer, M., Claassen, E., & Larsen, O. F. A. (2018) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2017.1334624 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Secondary proteolysis of cheese during ripening: A review
Rank, T. C., Grappin, R., & Olson, N. F. (1985) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(85)80895-x · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Contribution of starter and adjunct lactobacilli to proteolysis in Cheddar cheese during ripening
Lane, C. N., & Fox, P. F. (1996) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/0958-6946(95)00067-4 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Ong, L., Henriksson, A., & Shah, N. P. (2006) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.12.009 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Biochemistry of Cheese Ripening: Proteolysis
Ardö, Y., McSweeney, P. L. H., Magboul, A. A. A., Upadhyay, V. K., & Fox, P. F. (2017) · Cheese · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-417012-4.00018-1 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
O’Callaghan, T. F., Mannion, D. T., Hennessy, D., McAuliffe, S., O’Sullivan, M. G., Leeuwendaal, N., Beresford, T. P. J., Dillon, P., Kilcawley, K. N., Sheehan, J. J., et al. (2017) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-12508 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Self-citationFenelon, M. A., & Guinee, T. P. (1999) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(99)75477-9 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Lahtinen, S. J., Forssten, S. D., Aakko, J., Granlund, L., Rautonen, N., Salminen, S., Viitanen, M. H., & Ouwehand, A. C. (2011) · AGE · doi:10.1007/s11357-011-9208-6 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Biocheese: A Food Probiotic Carrier
Castro, J. M., Tornadijo, M. E., Fresno, J. M., & Sandoval, H. (2015) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2015/723056 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Sharp, M. D., McMahon, D. J., & Broadbent, J. R. (2008) · Journal of Food Science · doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00882.x · Cited by 88 · see citing works
The role of yogurt in food-based dietary guidelines
Gómez-Gallego, C., Gueimonde, M., & Salminen, S. (2018) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuy059 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Tryptophan Catabolism by Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus helveticus Cheese Flavor Adjuncts
Gummalla, S., & Broadbent, J. R. (1999) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(99)75448-2 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Secondary and Adjunct Cultures
Irlinger, F., Hélinck, S., & Jany, J. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-417012-4.00011-9 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Technological and probiotic role of adjunct cultures of non-starter lactobacilli in soft cheeses
Burns, P., Cuffia, F., Milesi, M. M., Vinderola, G., Meinardi, C. A., Sabbag, N. G., & Hynes, E. R. (2011) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2011.09.015 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Choi, J., In Lee, S., Rackerby, B., Frojen, R., Goddik, L., Ha, S.-D., & Park, S. H. (2020) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-020-10651-7 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Soodam, K., Ong, L., Powell, I. B., Kentish, S. E., & Gras, S. L. (2015) · Dairy Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s13594-015-0250-5 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Fermented food in the context of a healthy diet
Leroy, F., & Vuyst, L. D. (2014) · Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · doi:10.1097/mco.0000000000000108 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Secondary and Adjunct Cultures
Chamba, J. F., & Irlinger, F. (2004) · Cheese · doi:10.1016/s1874-558x(04)80068-x · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Songisepp, E., Hütt, P., Rätsep, M., Shkut, E., Kõljalg, S., Truusalu, K., Štšepetova, J., Smidt, I., Kolk, H., Zagura, M., et al. (2012) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4756 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Probiotic bacteria survive in Cheddar cheese and modify populations of other lactic acid bacteria
Ganesan, B., Weimer, B. C., Pinzon, J., Kong, N. D., Rompato, G., Brothersen, C., & McMahon, D. J. (2014) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/jam.12482 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Oberg, C. J., Moyes, L. V., Domek, M. J., Brothersen, C., & McMahon, D. J. (2011) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3934 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Stefanovic, E., & McAuliffe, O. E. (2018) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/s12864-018-4586-0 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Cheddar cheese and related dry-salted cheese varieties
(2004) · Cheese · doi:10.1016/s1874-558x(04)80040-x · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Hickey, C. D., Fallico, V., Wilkinson, M. G., & Sheehan, J. J. (2017) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2017.08.015 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Xia, X., Tobin, J. T., Sharma, P., Fenelon, M. A., McSweeney, P. L. H., & Sheehan, J. J. (2020) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2020.104796 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Hou, J., Hannon, J. A., McSweeney, P. L. H., Beresford, T. P., & Guinee, T. P. (2012) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2011.12.015 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Self-citationPROBIOTICS IN FERMENTED MEAT PRODUCTS
Kołożyn‐Krajewska, D., & Dolatowski, Z. J. (2009) · Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Technologia Alimentaria · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Tryptophan Catabolism in Brevibacterium linens as a Potential Cheese Flavor Adjunct
Ummadi, M., & Weimer, B. C. (2001) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(01)74614-0 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Baptista, D. P., Salgaço, M. K., Sivieri, K., & Gigante, M. L. (2020) · LWT · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110229 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Oh, N. S., Joung, J. Y., Lee, J. Y., Kim, S. H., & Kim, Y. (2016) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02689 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Cheddar Cheese and Related Dry-Salted Cheese Varieties
Ong, L., Lawrence, R. C., Gilles, J., Creamer, L. K., Crow, V. L., Heap, H. A., Honoré, C. G., Johnston, K. A., Samal, P. K., Powell, I. B., et al. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-417012-4.00033-8 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
The potential of non-starter lactic acid bacteria from Cheddar cheese to colonise the gut
Leeuwendaal, N., Stanton, C., O'Toole, P. W., & Beresford, T. P. (2021) · Journal of Functional Foods · doi:10.1016/j.jff.2021.104425 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Gilles, 1973, The assessment of Cheddar cheese quality by compositional analysis, New Zealand Journal of Dairy Science and Technology, 8, 148
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fermented Foods, Health and the Gut Microbiome
Leeuwendaal, N. K., Stanton, C., O’Toole, P. W., & Beresford, T. P. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14071527 · Cited by 496 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Potential Impact of Probiotics on Human Health: An Update on Their Health-Promoting Properties
Maftei, N.-M., Raileanu, C. R., Balta, A. A., Ambrose, L., Boev, M., Marin, D. B., & Lisa, E. L. (2024) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms12020234 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Dairy-Based Probiotic-Fermented Functional Foods: An Update on Their Health-Promoting Properties
Kaur, H., Kaur, G., & Ali, S. A. (2022) · Fermentation · doi:10.3390/fermentation8090425 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
He, X., Cui, Y., Jia, Q., Zhuang, Y., Gu, Y., Fan, X., & Ding, Y. (2025) · Food Bioscience · doi:10.1016/j.fbio.2025.105938 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Pereira, E. P. R., da Graça, J. S., Ferreira, B. M., Balthazar, C. F., Xavier-Santos, D., Bezerril, F. F., Magnani, M., & Sant’Ana, A. S. (2023) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113785 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Treven, P., Paveljšek, D., Matijašić, B. B., & Lorbeg, P. M. (2024) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods13193135 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Dimitrellou, D., Sakadani, E., & Kandylis, P. (2025) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods14030376 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Dışhan, A., & Gönülalan, Z. (2024) · Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins · doi:10.1007/s12602-024-10216-4 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Trends in Dairy Products: New Ingredients and Ultrasound-Based Processing
Rudke, C. R. M., Camelo‐Silva, C., Rudke, A. R., Prudêncio, E. S., & de Andrade, C. J. (2023) · Food and Bioprocess Technology · doi:10.1007/s11947-023-03153-7 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
New insights into functional cereal foods as an alternative for dairy products: A review
Kouamé, K. J. E., Bora, A. F. M., Li, X., Liu, L., Coulibaly, I., Sun, Y., & Hussain, M. (2023) · Food Bioscience · doi:10.1016/j.fbio.2023.102840 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Recent developments in cheese technologies
Bihola, A., Sharma, H., Chaudhary, M. B., Bumbadiya, M. R., Kumar, D. V., & Adil, S. (2024) · Food Reviews International · doi:10.1080/87559129.2024.2426024 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
El‐Saadony, M. T., Saad, A. M., Sitohy, M. Z., Alkafaas, S. S., Dladla, M., Ghosh, S., Mohammed, D. M., Ibrahim, E. H., Fahmy, M. A., Elkelish, A., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1713426 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Tamašauskaitė, L., Minelgaitė, V., Šipailienė, A., Vinauskienė, R., Eisinaitė, V., & Leskauskaitė, D. (2024) · Gels · doi:10.3390/gels10050349 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Valdiviezo-Marcelo, J., Arana-Torres, N. M., Portalatino, E. J. V., Ruiz-Flores, L. A., Tamariz-Angeles, C., Olivera-Gonzales, P., Rosales-Cuentas, M. M., & Espinoza-Espinoza, L. A. (2023) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1212229 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Szopa, K., Szajnar, K., Pawlos, M., & Znamirowska, A. (2023) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu15143241 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Strategies to Assess the Impact of Sustainable Functional Food Ingredients on Gut Microbiota
de Carvalho, N. M., Oliveira, D., Costa, C. M., Pintado, M., & Madureira, A. R. (2023) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods12112209 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Tong, Y., Wang, Z., Tong, Q., & Liu, Y. (2024) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods13244094 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Balthazar, C. F., Gentès, M., Mikhaylin, S., da Cruz, A. G., Sant’Ana, A. S., Turgeon, S. L., & Chamberland, J. (2025) · Food and Bioprocess Technology · doi:10.1007/s11947-025-03843-4 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Peralta, G. H., Beret, M. V., Bürgi, M., Ale, E. C., Martínez, L. J., Albarracín, V. H., Wolf, I. V., & Bergamini, C. V. (2023) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2023.105763 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Exploring the probiotic and prebiotic dynamics of cheese: An updated review
Aggarwal, A. O., Parmar, A., Panigrah, S. P., Verma, T., Dhyani, P., Bajya, S. L., & Singh, M. K. (2024) · Annals of Phytomedicine An International Journal · doi:10.54085/ap.2024.13.1.36 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Innovations in dairy technology: probiotics in Turkish white cheese production
Mazlum, H., & Atasever, M. (2024) · Journal of Food Measurement & Characterization · doi:10.1007/s11694-024-02826-x · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Improving the Chemical and Sensory Properties of Cheddar Cheese Using Adjunct Cultures
Khosravi‐Darani, K., & Massoud, R. (2022) · Current Nutrition & Food Science · doi:10.2174/1573401319666221227111126 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Szajnar, K., Pawlos, M., Kowalczyk, M., Drobniak, J., & Znamirowska, A. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17132249 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Probiotics: beneficial microbes for health and the food industry
Pal, A. D., & Pal, A. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-13932-1.00026-x · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Santis, G. D., Ilori, O. A., Abrego-Guandique, D. M., Plastina, P., Tucci, P., & Cione, E. (2026) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods15111871 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Balthazar, C. F., Chamberland, J., & Gentès, M. (2023) · Methods and protocols in food science · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-3187-4_2 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Ismiarti, I., Tanjung, A. D., & Sari, R. D. (2023) · Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan Terapan · doi:10.25047/jipt.v6i2.3506 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Probióticos: inovações no desenvolvimento de formulações de alimentos funcionais não convencionais
Bordini, F. W., Fernandes, J. C., de Souza, V. L. C., Galhardo, E. C., Pehrson, M. E. D. S. F., & MANCILHA, I. M. D. (2022) · Mérida Publishers eBooks · doi:10.4322/mp.978-65-84548-09-1.c4
A review of In vitro digestion models and studies for soft/semisoft and hard/semihard cheeses
Nasim, I., Faisal, Z., Akhtar, A., Maqsood, S., Khalid, N., & Barrow, C. J. (2025) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2025.106335
Elkashef, H., El-Dieb, S. M., Emam, A., El-Fattah, A. M. A., & Fawzy, A. (2026) · Journal of Food Measurement & Characterization · doi:10.1007/s11694-025-03894-3
Longley, S., Gibson, G. R., & Wijeyesekera, A. (2026) · ACS Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acsfoodscitech.5c01243
do Nascimento, R. S. B., Santos, B. N., Pereira, A. L. F., & Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr14111756
Qi, Y., Wang, Y., Hu, J., Song, B., Zhang, L., Liu, C., & Xu, J. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6889393
Cui, J., Li, J., Ran, M., Chen, Q., Fang, J., Jiang, J., Cao, Q., Li, P., Jiang, H., & Gu, Q. (2026) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2026.105896
Qi, Y., Wang, Y., Hu, J., Song, B., Zhang, L., Liu, C., & Xu, J. (2026) · LWT · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2026.119953
Salman, P. A. M., Chandran, A., & Beena, A. K. (2026) · Indian Journal of Small Ruminants (The) · doi:10.5958/0973-9718.2026.00028.0
- Authors
- Leeuwendaal, N. K., Hayes, J. J., Stanton, C., O'Toole, P. W., & Beresford, T. P.
- Affiliations
- Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Beresford, T.P.
- Venue
- Journal of Functional Foods
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-05
- Volume
- 92
- Pages
- 105042
- ISSN
- 1756-4646 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4220887431
- Semantic Scholar
- 8cc5357ff4861b0ba9f42d5b47417341e642a180
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 3.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Functional Foods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Science Foundation Ireland
- Teagasc
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
- Keywords
- probiotics, Cheddar cheese, cheese ripening, in vitro digestion, non-starter lactic acid bacteria, fermented milk, probiotic viability, cheese matrix
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.
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