Cited by 46Antibiotic Resistance in BacteriaProbiotics and Fermented FoodsPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

A Survey on Antimicrobial Resistance Genes of Frequently Used Probiotic Bacteria, 1901 to 2022

Open access
Tóth, Adrienn Gréta, Judge, Maura Fiona, Nagy, Sára Ágnes, Papp, Márton, Solymosi, Norbert·2023·Eurosurveillance

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

ABSTRACT Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the foremost threats facing the treatment of infectious diseases worldwide. Recent studies have highlighted the potential for antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) in fermented foods to contribute to AMR via horizontal gene transfer (HGT). The focus of our study was investigating the ARG content (resistome) and mobility potential of the ARGs (mobilome) of bacterial strains commonly used in probiotic products, namely yoghurt and kefir. We performed metagenomic analyses on freely available data sets (n=584) originating from various kefir and yoghurt strains using next generation sequencing (NGS) in order to gain an insight into the ARG diversity, frequency and mobility. Our study shows that kefir and yoghurt products carry diverse and significant amounts of ARGs and that these genes may often be associated with iMGEs or plasmids, conferring mobility. Certain bacteria species such as Bifidobacterium animalis and Streptococcus thermophilus were found to have higher ARG content. Overall, our results support the hypothesis that ARGs are present in fermented foods, namely yoghurt and kefir, and have the potential to contribute to AMR.

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 · 10.2807/1560-7917.es.2023.28.14.2200272

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Commercial probiotic products may contain ARGs or transferable resistance determinants, although the level of risk varies substantially among product types, bacterial taxa and analytical pipelines.

    “Previous studies have shown that commercial probiotic products may contain ARGs or transferable resistance determinants, although the level of risk varies substantially among product types, bacterial taxa and analytical pipelines [15,16,17,18,19,20].”

    From Integrated Phenotypic and Sequencing-Based Resistome Assessment of Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants in a Sample of Commercial Farm-Animal Probiotic Products (2026) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Introduction and Discussion report ARGs, including potentially mobile ones, in probiotic bacteria associated with foods and supplements. The Discussion and Conclusions say ARG occurrence varies by bacterial species. The paper does not establish that risk varies by product type or analytical pipeline; it uses a unified pipeline and does not compare product-type risks. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mobility, ecological opportunity and recipient compatibility determine whether an ARG becomes a clinically relevant hazard.

    “This framework is consistent with the broader horizontal gene transfer (HGT) literature, which emphasizes that mobility, ecological opportunity and recipient compatibility determine whether an ARG becomes a clinically relevant hazard [11,12,16,17].”

    From Integrated Phenotypic and Sequencing-Based Resistome Assessment of Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants in a Sample of Commercial Farm-Animal Probiotic Products (2026) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes mobile ARGs entering the gut and potentially transferring to other bacteria, with colonisation facilitating that opportunity. The Abstract’s Conclusion (page unavailable) adds that proximity may enable transfer even to pathogens, but acquiring a mobile ARG does not always confer resistance. These passages support mobility and ecological opportunity, but do not specifically identify recipient compatibility as a determining factor in clinical hazard. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The present farm-animal dataset appears less concerning than several reports on broader probiotic or food-associated bacterial collections, where ARGs were frequently detected together with plasmid or iMGE signals.

    “the present farm-animal dataset appears less concerning than several reports on broader probiotic or food-associated bacterial collections, where ARGs were frequently detected together with plasmid or iMGE signals [16,17].”
  • Among ARG-positive samples in a large survey by Tóth et al., 66% were linked to plasmids or iMGEs, although no bacteriophage-linked ARGs were found.

    “This profile contrasts with the large survey by Tóth et al., where ARGs were detected in several commonly used probiotic species and, among ARG-positive samples, 66% were linked to plasmids or iMGEs, although no bacteriophage-linked ARGs were found [17].”
  • Probiotic products and probiotic-associated taxa may carry detectable ARGs, but public-health relevance depends on taxon identity, gene function, genomic context and mobility potential rather than on ARG counts alone.

    “previous studies have shown that probiotic products and probiotic-associated taxa may carry detectable ARGs, but that public-health relevance depends on taxon identity, gene function, genomic context and mobility potential rather than on ARG counts alone [15,16,17,18,22,23].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. [1]European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). European Medicines Agency (EMA). Third joint inter-agency report on integrated analysis of consumption of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from humans and food-producing animals in the EU/EEA: JIACRA III 2016-2018. EFSA J. 2021; 19(6): e06712. PMID:34221148 34221148 PMC8243991
  2. [3]Partridge SR Kwong SM Firth N Jensen SO. Mobile Genetic Elements Associated with Antimicrobial Resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018; 31(4): e00088- 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00088-17 PMID:30068738 30068738 PMC6148190 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [4]Thomas CM Nielsen KM. Mechanisms of, and barriers to, horizontal gene transfer between bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005; 3(9): 711- 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1234 PMID:16138099 16138099 · DOI
  4. [6]Johansson MHK Bortolaia V Tansirichaiya S Aarestrup FM Roberts AP Petersen TN. Detection of mobile genetic elements associated with antibiotic resistance in Salmonella enterica using a newly developed web tool: MobileElementFinder. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021; 76(1): 101- 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkaa390 PMID:33009809 33009809 PMC7729385 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [7]Sharma P Tomar SK Goswami P Sangwan V Singh R. Antibiotic resistance among commercially available probiotics. Food Res Int. 2014; 57: 176- 95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.01.025 · DOI
  6. [9]Berreta A Baumgardner RM Kopper JJ. Evaluation of commercial veterinary probiotics containing enterococci for transferrable vancomycin resistance genes. BMC Res Notes. 2020; 13(1): 275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05114-1 PMID:32498700 32498700 PMC7271421 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [10]Rozman V Mohar Lorbeg P Accetto T Bogovič Matijašić B. Characterization of antimicrobial resistance in lactobacilli and bifidobacteria used as probiotics or starter cultures based on integration of phenotypic and in silico data. Int J Food Microbiol. 2020; 314: 108388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.108388 PMID:31707173 31707173 · DOI
  8. [11]Selvin J Maity D Sajayan A Kiran GS. Revealing antibiotic resistance in therapeutic and dietary probiotic supplements. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020; 22: 202- 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2020.02.007 PMID:32084605 32084605 · DOI
  9. [12]Tóth AG Csabai I Krikó E Tőzsér D Maróti G Patai ÁV Antimicrobial resistance genes in raw milk for human consumption. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1): 7464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63675-4 PMID:32366826 32366826 PMC7198526 · DOI
  10. [13]Tóth AG Csabai I Maróti G Jerzsele Á Dubecz A Patai ÁV A glimpse of antimicrobial resistance gene diversity in kefir and yoghurt. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1): 22458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80444-5 PMID:33384459 33384459 PMC7775456 · DOI
  11. [17]Montassier E Valdés-Mas R Batard E Zmora N Dori-Bachash M Suez J Probiotics impact the antibiotic resistance gene reservoir along the human GI tract in a person-specific and antibiotic-dependent manner. Nat Microbiol. 2021; 6(8): 1043- 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41564-021-00920-0 PMID:34226711 34226711 PMC8318886 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [18]Gueimonde M Delgado S Mayo B Ruas-Madiedo P Margolles A de los Reyes-Gavilán CG. Viability and diversity of probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium populations included in commercial fermented milks. Food Res Int. 2004; 37(9): 839- 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2004.04.006 · DOI
  13. [19]Witthuhn R Schoeman T Britz T. Characterisation of the microbial population at different stages of kefir production and kefir grain mass cultivation. Int Dairy J. 2005; 15(4): 383- 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2004.07.016 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [20]Bourrie BC Willing BP Cotter PD. The microbiota and health promoting characteristics of the fermented beverage kefir. Front Microbiol. 2016; 7: 647. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00647 PMID:27199969 27199969 PMC4854945 · DOI
  15. [21]Bengoa AA Iraporda C Garrote GL Abraham AG. Kefir micro-organisms: their role in grain assembly and health properties of fermented milk. J Appl Microbiol. 2019; 126(3): 686- 700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jam.14107 PMID:30218595 30218595 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [22]Van Wyk J. Kefir: The champagne of fermented beverages. In Grumezescu, M. & Holban, A. M. (eds.) Fermented Beverages. Duxford: Woodhead Publishing; 2019. 473-527.
  17. [24]Langmead B Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012; 9(4): 357- 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1923 PMID:22388286 22388286 PMC3322381 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [25]Li D Liu C-M Luo R Sadakane K Lam T-W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(10): 1674- 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv033 PMID:25609793 25609793 · DOI
  19. [26]Hyatt D Chen GL Locascio PF Land ML Larimer FW Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010; 11(1): 119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-119 PMID:20211023 20211023 PMC2848648 · DOI
  20. [27]McArthur AG Waglechner N Nizam F Yan A Azad MA Baylay AJ The comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013; 57(7): 3348- 57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00419-13 PMID:23650175 23650175 PMC3697360 · DOI
  21. [28]Jia B Raphenya AR Alcock B Waglechner N Guo P Tsang KK CARD 2017: expansion and model-centric curation of the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017; 45(D1): D566- 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1004 PMID:27789705 27789705 PMC5210516 · DOI
  22. [29]Buchfink B Xie C Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2015; 12(1): 59- 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3176 PMID:25402007 25402007 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [30]Krawczyk PS Lipinski L Dziembowski A. PlasFlow: predicting plasmid sequences in metagenomic data using genome signatures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018; 46(6): e35- 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1321 PMID:29346586 29346586 PMC5887522 · DOI
  24. [31]Guo J Bolduc B Zayed AA Varsani A Dominguez-Huerta G Delmont TO VirSorter2: a multi-classifier, expert-guided approach to detect diverse DNA and RNA viruses. Microbiome. 2021; 9(1): 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-020-00990-y PMID:33522966 33522966 PMC7852108 · DOI
  25. [34]Lokesh D Parkesh R Kammara R. Bifidobacterium adolescentis is intrinsically resistant to antitubercular drugs. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1): 11897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30429-2 PMID:30093677 30093677 PMC6085307 · DOI
  26. [35]Nøhr-Meldgaard K Struve C Ingmer H Agersø Y. The tetracycline resistance gene, tet(W) in Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis follows phylogeny and differs from tet(W) in other species. Front Microbiol. 2021; 12: 658943. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.658943 PMID:34335493 34335493 PMC8319848 · DOI
  27. [36]Ammor MS Flórez AB Alvarez-Martín P Margolles A Mayo B. Analysis of tetracycline resistance tet(W) genes and their flanking sequences in intestinal Bifidobacterium species. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008; 62(4): 688- 93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkn280 PMID:18614524 18614524 · DOI
  28. [37]Gueimonde M Flórez AB van Hoek AH Stuer-Lauridsen B Strøman P de los Reyes-Gavilán CG Genetic basis of tetracycline resistance in Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010; 76(10): 3364- 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03096-09 PMID:20348299 20348299 PMC2869156 · DOI
  29. [38]Lubelski J de Jong A van Merkerk R Agustiandari H Kuipers OP Kok J LmrCD is a major multidrug resistance transporter in Lactococcus lactis. Mol Microbiol. 2006; 61(3): 771- 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05267.x PMID:16879641 16879641 · DOI
  30. [39]Flórez AB de Los Reyes-Gavilán CG Wind A Mayo B Margolles A. Ubiquity and diversity of multidrug resistance genes in Lactococcus lactis strains isolated between 1936 and 1995. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006; 263(1): 21- 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00371.x PMID:16958846 16958846 · DOI
  31. [40]Ainsworth S Stockdale S Bottacini F Mahony J van Sinderen D. The Lactococcus lactis plasmidome: much learnt, yet still lots to discover. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2014; 38(5): 1066- 88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12074 PMID:24861818 24861818 · DOI
  32. [42]Li L Olsen RH Shi L Ye L He J Meng H. Characterization of a plasmid carrying cat, ermB and tetS genes in a foodborne Listeria monocytogenes strain and uptake of the plasmid by cariogenic Streptococcus mutans. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016; 238: 68- 71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.08.038 PMID:27592072 27592072 · DOI
  33. [45]World Organisation for Animal Health. (OIE, WOFAH). OIE list of antimicrobial agents of veterinary importance. J. OIE Int. Commit. 2015; 33: 1- 9.
  34. [46]European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA statement on the requirements for whole genome sequence analysis of microorganisms intentionally used in the food chain. EFSA J. 2021; 19(7): e06506. PMID:34335919 34335919 PMC8317053

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tóth, A. G., Judge, M. F., Nagy, S. Á., Papp, M., & Solymosi, N.
Affiliations
University of Veterinary Medicine (HU)
Corresponding author
Solymosi, Norbert
Venue
Eurosurveillance
Published
2023-04-06
Volume
28
Issue
14
ISSN
  • 1025-496X (ISSN-L)
  • 1560-7917
OpenAlex
W4362658215
Cited by
46
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 4
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Eurosurveillance (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (874735, HORIZON2020)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Keywords
antimicrobial resistance genes, probiotic bacteria, horizontal gene transfer, mobile genetic elements, plasmids, fermented foods, Bifidobacterium animalis, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactococcus lactis, Streptococcus thermophilus, gut microbiota
MeSH terms
Bifidobacterium animalis, Genes, Bacterial, Gram-Positive Bacteria, Genome, Bacterial, Probiotics, Drug Resistance, Bacterial, Lactobacillales

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