Wassenaar Trudy M, Zimmermann Kurt
Molecular Microbiology and Genomics Consultancy, Tannenstrasse 7, 55576 Zotzenheim, Germany.
SymbioPharm GmbH, Herborn, Germany.
Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp). 2018 Aug 21;8(3):63-69. doi: 10.1556/1886.2018.00017. eCollection 2018 Sep 28.
The fever-inducing effect of lipopolysaccharides (LPS) is well known, and human blood is extremely responsive to this pyrogen. Recently, the safety of LPS-containing food supplements and probiotic drugs as immune-stimulants has been questioned, although these products are orally taken and do not reach the bloodstream undigested. The concerns are understandable, as endotoxaemia is a pathological condition, but the oral uptake of probiotic products containing LPS or Gram-negative bacteria does not pose a health risk, based on the available scientific evidence, as is reviewed here. The available methods developed to detect LPS and other pyrogens are mostly used for quality control of parentally applied therapeuticals. Their outcome varies considerably when applied to food supplements, as demonstrated in a simple comparative experiment. Products containing different strains can result in vastly different results on their LPS content, depending on the method of testing. This is an inherent complication to pyrogen testing, which hampers the communication that the LPS content of food supplements is not a safety concern.
脂多糖(LPS)的致热作用众所周知,人体血液对这种热原极为敏感。最近,含LPS的食品补充剂和益生菌药物作为免疫刺激剂的安全性受到质疑,尽管这些产品是口服的,且不会未经消化就进入血液循环。这些担忧是可以理解的,因为内毒素血症是一种病理状态,但根据现有科学证据,口服含有LPS或革兰氏阴性菌的益生菌产品不会对健康构成风险,本文对此进行了综述。现有的检测LPS和其他热原的方法大多用于肠胃外给药治疗剂的质量控制。在一个简单的对比实验中表明,将这些方法应用于食品补充剂时,其结果差异很大。含有不同菌株的产品,其LPS含量根据检测方法的不同可能会得出截然不同的结果。这是热原检测中一个固有的复杂问题,它妨碍了关于食品补充剂中LPS含量并非安全问题的信息传达。