Cited by 315Probiotics and Fermented FoodsAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaGut microbiota and health

Genomic and epidemiological evidence of bacterial transmission from probiotic capsule to blood in ICU patients

Open access
Yelin, Idan, Flett, Kelly B., Merakou, Christina, Mehrotra, Preeti, Stam, Jason, Snesrud, Erik, Hinkle, Mary, Lesho, Emil +5 more·2019·Nature Medicine

Abstract

Probiotics are routinely administered to hospitalized patients for many potential indications 1 but have been associated with adverse effects that may outweigh their potential benefits 2-7. It is particularly alarming that probiotic strains can cause bacteremia 8,9, yet direct evidence for an ancestral link between blood isolates and administered probiotics is lacking. Here we report a markedly higher risk of Lactobacillus bacteremia for intensive care unit (ICU) patients treated with probiotics compared to those not treated, and provide genomics data that support the idea of direct clonal transmission of probiotics to the bloodstream. Whole-genome-based phylogeny showed that Lactobacilli isolated from treated patients' blood were phylogenetically inseparable from Lactobacilli isolated from the associated probiotic product. Indeed, the minute genetic diversity among the blood isolates mostly mirrored pre-existing genetic heterogeneity found in the probiotic product. Some blood isolates also contained de novo mutations, including a non-synonymous SNP conferring antibiotic resistance in one patient. Our findings support that probiotic strains can directly cause bacteremia and adaptively evolve within ICU patients.

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/s41591-019-0626-9

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 non-ICU patients not prescribed probiotics, the incidence of LB was 10/93,000 (0.0001%).

    “The incidence of LB in non-ICU patients not prescribed probiotics was even lower (10/93,000; 0.0001%) and was caused by a variety of lactobacilli (Lcb. rhamnosus, Lpb. plantarum, Lcb. Casei, or L. gasseri), but once again, the strains were not reported.”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The epidemiological results (passage [1]) report ten cases among approximately 93,000 non-ICU patients, none of whom were receiving a probiotic at the time of bacteremia. The stated percentage is incorrect: 10/93,000 is approximately 0.01%, not 0.0001%. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In ICU patients not taking probiotics, only two (0.009%) cases of LB were detected among 21,652 patients.

    “One study reviewed cases reported over 5.5 years at a hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and found of 21,652 patients admitted to their ICU who were not taking any probiotics, only two (0.009%) cases of LB were detected, which were caused by either L. acidophilus or Lpb. plantarum, but the specific strain was not reported [47].”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The paper reports two cases of Lactobacillus bacteremia (0.009%) among 21,652 ICU patients who did not receive an LGG-containing probiotic. It does not define that entire group as taking no probiotics: the Patient inclusion criteria and clinical data section says 645 ICU patients received probiotics, but only 522 received one containing LGG. The case count and rate match, but the claim broadens the comparison group incorrectly. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Our review revealed 49 case reports of LB without any history of probiotic use.

    “Our review also revealed 49 case reports of LB without any history of probiotic use (Table 1) [24,26,27,33,35,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Patient inclusion criteria and clinical data section (page unavailable) reports 12 cases of Lactobacillus bacteremia in patients not receiving probiotics, so this paper could contribute cases to the citing review. It does not establish the review’s total of 49 case reports or rule out any prior history of probiotic use. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Our review of the literature (from 1980 to 2023) found 23 cases where the blood isolate from a bacteremic patient was identical to the probiotic strain the patient had been taking.

    “Our review of the literature (from 1980 to 2023) found 23 cases where the blood isolate from a bacteremic patient was identical to the probiotic strain the patient had been taking.”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The genomic analysis reports six probiotic-treated patients whose blood isolates were phylogenetically inseparable from isolates in the probiotic product. It does not report a literature review from 1980 to 2023 or a finding of 23 such cases; the paper was published in 2019. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Blood isolate mutations did not appear in the probiotic isolates, suggesting de novo evolution within the patient.

    “In addition, they identified blood isolate mutations that did not appear in the probiotic isolates, suggesting de novo evolution within the patient.”

    From Lactobacillus Bacteremia and Probiotics: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

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
Yelin, I., Flett, K. B., Merakou, C., Mehrotra, P., Stam, J., Snesrud, E., Hinkle, M., Lesho, E., McGann, P., McAdam, A. J., Sandora, T. J., Kishony, R., & Priebe, G. P.
Affiliations
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (US)
Corresponding author
  • Sandora, Thomas J.
  • Kishony, Roy
  • Priebe, Gregory P.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2019-11
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
1728-1732
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2987760949
Cited by
315
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 6
FWCI
27.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Boston Children's Hospital
  • National Institutes of Health (281891, GM081617)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM081617)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
probiotics, bacteremia, Lactobacillus, intensive care unit patients, clonal transmission, whole-genome phylogeny, bloodstream infection, antibiotic resistance, de novo mutations
MeSH terms
Whole Genome Sequencing, Diarrhea, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Lactobacillus, Mutation, Phylogeny, Genetic Variation, Bacteremia, Genome, Bacterial, Probiotics, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genomics, Drug Resistance, Bacterial

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