Cited by 154Probiotics and Fermented FoodsInfant Nutrition and HealthGut microbiota and health

Validating bifidobacterial species and subspecies identity in commercial probiotic products

Open access
Lewis, Zachery T., Shani, Guy, Masarweh, Chad F., Popovic, Mina, Frese, Steve A., Sela, David A., Underwood, Mark A., Mills, David A.·2016·Pediatric Research

Abstract

Background The ingestion of probiotics to attempt to improve health is increasingly common; however, quality control of some commercial products can be limited. Clinical practice is shifting toward the routine use of probiotics to aid in prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants, and probiotic administration to term infants is increasingly common to treat colic and/or prevent atopic disease. Since bifidobacteria dominate the feces of healthy breast-fed infants, they are often included in infant-targeted probiotics.Methods We evaluated 16 probiotic products to determine how well their label claims describe the species of detectable bifidobacteria in the product. Recently developed DNA-based methods were used as a primary means of identification, and were confirmed using culture-based techniques.Results We found that the contents of many bifidobacterial probiotic products differ from the ingredient list, sometimes at a subspecies level. Only 1 of the 16 probiotics perfectly matched its bifidobacterial label claims in all samples tested, and both pill-to-pill and lot-to-lot variation were observed.Conclusion Given the known differences between various bifidobacterial species and subspecies in metabolic capacity and colonization abilities, the prevalence of misidentified bifidobacteria in these products is cause for concern for those involved in clinical trials and consumers of probiotic products.

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 · 10.1038/pr.2015.244

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • In a recent study performed with 16 probiotic products, using DNA-based methods as well as culturing techniques, only one matched its bifidobacterial label; thus, most of them differ from the ingredient list.

    “Indeed, in a recent study performed with 16 probiotic products, using DNA-based methods as well as culturing techniques, only one matched its bifidobacterial label; thus, most of them differ from the ingredient list (101).”

    From Bifidobacteria and Their Health-Promoting Effects (2017) · cites this paper as [101]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, Z. T., Shani, G., Masarweh, C. F., Popovic, M., Frese, S. A., Sela, D. A., Underwood, M. A., & Mills, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Corresponding author
Mills, David A.
Venue
Pediatric Research
Published
2015-11-16
Volume
79
Issue
3
Pages
445-452
ISSN
  • 0031-3998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-0447
OpenAlex
W2285826822
Cited by
154
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 8
FWCI
17.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pediatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT008759, R01AT007079, F32AT008533)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
Bifidobacterium, probiotics, species identification, subspecies identification, probiotic quality control, label claims, DNA-based identification, culture-based identification, lot-to-lot variation, necrotizing enterocolitis prevention, breast-fed infants
MeSH terms
Bifidobacterium, DNA, Bacterial, Feces, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Premature, Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment Length, Species Specificity, Bacterial Typing Techniques, Genome, Bacterial, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization, Probiotics, Enterocolitis, Necrotizing

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