The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The safety of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus indicus as food probiotics
Abstract
AIMS: To conduct in vitro and in vivo assessments of the safety of two species of Bacillus, one of which, Bacillus subtilis, is in current use as a food supplement. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cultured cell lines, Caco-2, HEp-2 and the mucus-producing HT29-16E cell line, were used to evaluate adhesion, invasion and cytotoxicity. The Natto strain of B. subtilis was shown to be able to invade and lyse cells. Neither species was able to adhere significantly to any cell line. The Natto strain was also shown to form biofilms. No strain produced any of the known Bacillus enterotoxins. Disc-diffusion assays using a panel of antibiotics listed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) showed that only Bacillus indicus carried resistance to clindamycin at a level above the minimum inhibitory concentration breakpoints set by the EFSA. In vivo assessments of acute and chronic dosing in guinea pigs and rabbits were made. No toxicity was observed in animals under these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Bacillus indicus and B. subtilis should be considered safe for oral use although the resistance of B. indicus to clindamycin requires further study. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The results support the use of B. subtilis and B. indicus strains as food supplements.
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
Cites
Demonstration of safety of probiotics—A review
Salminen, S. (1998) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1605(98)00128-7 · Cited by 884
Cited by
Bacillus As Potential Probiotics: Status, Concerns, and Future Perspectives
Elshaghabee, F. M. F., Rokana, N., Gulhane, R. D., Sharma, C., & Panwar, H. (2017) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.01490 · Cited by 940
How to select a probiotic? A review and update of methods and criteria
de Melo Pereira, G. V., de Oliveira Coelho, B., Magalhães Júnior, A. I., Thomaz-Soccol, V., & Soccol, C. R. (2018) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.09.003 · Cited by 523
Comprehensive approaches for assessing the safety of probiotic bacteria
Pradhan, D., Mallappa, R. H., & Grover, S. (2020) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106872 · Cited by 179
Cerezuela, R., Meseguer, J., & Esteban, M. Á. (2013) · Fish & Shellfish Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.fsi.2012.12.026 · Cited by 103
Thirabunyanon, M., & Thongwittaya, N. (2012) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.08.008 · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Hong, H. A., Huang, J.-M., Khaneja, R., Hiep, L. V., Urdaci, M. C., & Cutting, S. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Microbiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 510-520
- ISSN
- 1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2672
- OpenAlex
- W2111776523
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.16
- 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: The safety of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus indicus as food probiotics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03773.x
- The paper
- Hong, H. A., Huang, J.-M., Khaneja, R., Hiep, L. V., Urdaci, M. C., & Cutting, S. M. (2008). The safety of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus indicus as food probiotics. Journal of Applied Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03773.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.
