Cited by 816Probiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and healthAgricultural safety and regulations

Safety assessment of probiotics for human use

Open access
Sanders, Mary Ellen, Akkermans, Louis M.A., Haller, Dirk, Hammerman, Cathy, Heimbach, James T., Hörmannsperger, Gabriele, Huys, Geert·2010·Gut Microbes

Abstract

The safety of probiotics is tied to their intended use, which includes consideration of potential vulnerability of the consumer or patient, dose and duration of consumption, and both the manner and frequency of administration. Unique to probiotics is that they are alive when administered, and unlike other food or drug ingredients, possess the potential for infectivity or in situ toxin production. Since numerous types of microbes are used as probiotics, safety is also intricately tied to the nature of the specific microbe being used. The presence of transferable antibiotic resistance genes, which comprises a theoretical risk of transfer to a less innocuous member of the gut microbial community, must also be considered. Genetic stability of the probiotic over time, deleterious metabolic activities, and the potential for pathogenicity or toxicogenicity must be assessed depending on the characteristics of the genus and species of the microbe being used. Immunological effects must be considered, especially in certain vulnerable populations, including infants with undeveloped immune function. A few reports about negative probiotic effects have surfaced, the significance of which would be better understood with more complete understanding of the mechanisms of probiotic interaction with the host and colonizing microbes. Use of readily available and low cost genomic sequencing technologies to assure the absence of genes of concern is advisable for candidate probiotic strains. The field of probiotic safety is characterized by the scarcity of studies specifically designed to assess safety contrasted with the long history of safe use of many of these microbes in foods.

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 · 10.4161/gmic.1.3.12127

Cites

201 of 201 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?

  • Use of AI to analyze big data for real-time monitoring will simplify clinical trials by providing monitoring of adverse events and more accurate tracking of specific strains in real time.

    “The use of AI to analyze big data for real-time monitoring will simplify clinical trials by providing monitoring of adverse events and more accurate tracking of specific strains in real time to evaluate a more complete safety profile of probiotics [19].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Introduction and Scope (page unavailable) says human studies have tracked adverse incidents and that improved methods have helped trace incidents to specific probiotic strains. The Microbiological and Metabolic Issues Related to Safety section (page unavailable) also describes strain identification as important for tracking and safety surveillance. Neither passage supports the claim that AI analysis of big data enables real-time monitoring or simplifies clinical trials. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Intestinal barrier dysfunction may contribute to infection development, which can subsequently lead to sepsis or inflammation.

    “In such vulnerable patient groups, intestinal barrier dysfunction increases the risk of adverse effects from probiotics [81] and may contribute to infection development, which can subsequently lead to sepsis or inflammation [19].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Probiotic safety is linked to intended use, strain identity, and historical evidence of safe exposure, and is distinct from classical pathogenic risk assessment.

    “Consistent with established guidance, probiotic safety is linked to intended use, strain identity, and historical evidence of safe exposure, and is distinct from classical pathogenic risk assessment.20-22”
  • Recommended safety criteria in selecting probiotics include isolation environment, taxonomic identification, and absence of virulence and transferable antibiotic resistance genes.

    “Recommended safety criteria in selecting probiotics include isolation environment, taxonomic identification, and absence of virulence and transferable antibiotic resistance genes [13].”
  • Overall, probiotics have an excellent safety profile with a large majority of clinical trials involving probiotics not giving rise to major safety concerns.

    “Overall, probiotics have an excellent safety profile with a large majority of clinical trials involving probiotics not giving rise to major safety concerns [213].”

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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Rautio M, Jousimies-Somer H, Kauma H, Pietarinen I, Saxelin M, Tynkkynen S, et al. Liver abscess due to a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain indistinguishable from L. rhamnosus strain GG. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 28:1159- 60.
  2. Vlieger AM, Robroch A, van Buuren S, Kiers J, Rijkers G, Benninga MA, et al. Tolerance and safety of Lactobacillus paracasei ssp. paracasei in combination with Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis in a prebiotic- containing infant formula: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Nutr 2009; 102:869-75.
  3. Stolley H, Droese W. Lactic acid in milk formula, the influence on absorption of nutrients and the influence on the metabolism in young babies. Acta Paediatr Scand 1971; 60:367-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sanders, M. E., Akkermans, L. M. A., Haller, D., Hammerman, C., Heimbach, J. T., Hörmannsperger, G., & Huys, G.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Shaare Zedek Medical Center (IL)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Sanders, Mary Ellen
Venue
Gut Microbes
Published
2010-05
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
164-185
ISSN
  • 1949-0976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-0984
OpenAlex
W2019795434
Cited by
816
References
201
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 20
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Gut Microbes (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
probiotic safety, probiotic safety assessment, antibiotic resistance genes, genetic stability, pathogenicity, immunological effects, infants, mode of administration, gut microbiota, toxin production, vulnerable populations
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacteria, Consumer Product Safety, Drug Therapy, Humans, Intestines, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Probiotics, Food Safety

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