The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Modulating immune responses with probiotic bacteria
Abstract
For many years, probiotic bacteria have been known to confer health benefits to the consumer. One possible mechanism for this may be the ability of probiotic bacteria to modulate immune responses. Oral administration of Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota (LcS) has been found to enhance innate immunity by stimulating the activity of splenic NK cells. Oral feeding with killed LcS was able to stimulate the production of Th1 cytokines, resulting in repressed production of IgE antibodies against Ovalbumin in experimental mice. The ability to switch mucosal immune responses towards Th1 with probiotic bacteria provides a strategy for treatment of allergic disorders. Growth of Meth A tumour cells in the lungs was also inhibited by intrapleural injection of LcS. Oral administration of other probiotic bacteria, such as Streptococcus thermophilus (St), Lactobacillus fermentum (Lf) and yeast (Y), elicited different immune responses. Mice that were prefed yeast or Lf followed by feeding with ovalbumin (OVA) responded better to vaccination with OVA than mice not given either probiotic or OVA or mice that had been prefed only OVA. However, antibody responses were significantly suppressed in response to vaccination with OVA in mice that had been prefed yeast followed by yeast and OVA as well as mice prefed Lf followed by Lf and OVA. Prefeeding St followed by OVA feeding enhanced cellular immune responses against ovalbumin. In contrast, mice prefed St followed by St + OVA were hyporesponsive against OVA. While antigen feeding alone appears to prime for an immune response, cofeeding antigen with probiotic bacteria can suppress both antibody and cellular immune responses and may provide an efficacious protocol to attenuate autoimmune diseases, such as experimental allergic encephalomyelitis, by jointly dosing with myelin basic protein and probiotic bacteria.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Antagonistic activities of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria against microbial pathogens
Servin, A. L. (2004) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.femsre.2004.01.003 · Cited by 1,236
Potential Uses of Probiotics in Clinical Practice
Reid, G., Jass, J., Sebulsky, M. T., & McCormick, J. K. (2003) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.16.4.658-672.2003 · Cited by 912
Taverniti, V., & Guglielmetti, S. (2011) · Genes & Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s12263-011-0218-x · Cited by 703
The advancement of probiotics research and its application in fish farming industries
Banerjee, G., & Ray, A. K. (2017) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.01.016 · Cited by 334
Altered gut flora and environment in patients with severe SIRS
Shimizu, K., Ogura, H., Goto, M., Asahara, T., Nomoto, K., Morotomi, M., Yoshiya, K., Matsushima, A., Sumi, Y., Kuwagata, Y., et al. (2006) · The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · doi:10.1097/01.ta.0000197374.99755.fe · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Matsuzaki, T., & Chin, J.
- Venue
- Immunology & Cell Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-73
- ISSN
- 0004-945X (ISSN-L)
- 0818-9641
- 1440-1711
- OpenAlex
- W1988058829
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modulating immune responses with probiotic bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1440-1711.2000.00887.x
- The paper
- Matsuzaki, T., & Chin, J. (2000). Modulating immune responses with probiotic bacteria. Immunology & Cell Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1711.2000.00887.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.