Cited by 342Probiotics and Fermented FoodsMicrobial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyGut microbiota and health

Probiotic Bifidobacterium strains and galactooligosaccharides improve intestinal barrier function in obese adults but show no synergism when used together as synbiotics

Open access
Krumbeck, Janina A., Rasmussen, Heather E., Hutkins, Robert W., Clarke, Jennifer, Shawron, Krista, Keshavarzian, Ali, Walter, Jens·2018·Microbiome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One way to improve both the ecological performance and functionality of probiotic bacteria is by combining them with a prebiotic in the form of a synbiotic. However, the degree to which such synbiotic formulations improve probiotic strain functionality in humans has not been tested systematically. Our goal was to use a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial in obese humans to compare the ecological and physiological impact of the prebiotic galactooligosaccharides (GOS) and the probiotic strains Bifidobacterium adolescentis IVS-1 (autochthonous and selected via in vivo selection) and Bifidobacterium lactis BB-12 (commercial probiotic allochthonous to the human gut) when used on their own or as synbiotic combinations. After 3 weeks of consumption, strain-specific quantitative real-time PCR and 16S rRNA gene sequencing were performed on fecal samples to assess changes in the microbiota. Intestinal permeability was determined by measuring sugar recovery in urine by GC after consumption of a sugar mixture. Serum-based endotoxin exposure was also assessed. RESULTS: IVS-1 reached significantly higher cell numbers in fecal samples than BB-12 (P < 0.01) and, remarkably, its administration induced an increase in total bifidobacteria that was comparable to that of GOS. Although GOS showed a clear bifidogenic effect on the resident gut microbiota, both probiotic strains showed only a non-significant trend of higher fecal cell numbers when administered with GOS. Post-aspirin sucralose:lactulose ratios were reduced in groups IVS-1 (P = 0.050), IVS-1 + GOS (P = 0.022), and GOS (P = 0.010), while sucralose excretion was reduced with BB-12 (P = 0.002) and GOS (P = 0.020), indicating improvements in colonic permeability but no synergistic effects. No changes in markers of endotoxemia were observed. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that "autochthony" of the probiotic strain has a larger effect on ecological performance than the provision of a prebiotic substrate, likely due to competitive interactions with members of the resident microbiota. Although the synbiotic combinations tested in this study did not demonstrate functional synergism, our findings clearly showed that the pro- and prebiotic components by themselves improved markers of colonic permeability, providing a rational for their use in pathologies with an underlying leakiness of the gut.

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 · 10.1186/s40168-018-0494-4

Cites

103 of 103 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?

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
Krumbeck, J. A., Rasmussen, H. E., Hutkins, R. W., Clarke, J., Shawron, K., Keshavarzian, A., & Walter, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hutkins, Robert W.
  • Keshavarzian, Ali
  • Walter, Jens
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2018-06-28
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
121-121
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809784323
Cited by
342
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
23.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microbiome (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (#2012-67017-19344)
  • Nebraska Research Initiative
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
synbiotics, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12, galactooligosaccharides, intestinal barrier function, colonic permeability, gut microbiota, endotoxemia, obesity
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Adult, Bifidobacterium, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Intestines, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Oligosaccharides, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Sucrose, Tight Junctions, Endotoxemia, Probiotics, Young Adult, Prebiotics, Synbiotics

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