Van Holm Wannes, Lauwens Katalina, De Wever Pieter, Schuermans Art, Zayed Naiera, Pamuk Ferda, Saghi Mehraveh, Fardim Pedro, Bernaerts Kristel, Boon Nico, Teughels Wim
Department of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Centre for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Ghent University (UGent), Ghent, Belgium.
Front Microbiol. 2023 Jul 6;14:1219692. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1219692. eCollection 2023.
Probiotics have demonstrated oral health benefits by influencing the microbiome and the host. Although promising, their current use is potentially constrained by several restrictions. One such limiting factor lies in the prevailing preparation of a probiotic product. To commercialize the probiotic, a shelf stable product is achieved by temporarily inactivating the live probiotic through drying or freeze drying. Even though a lyophilized probiotic can be kept dormant for an extended period of time, their viability can be severely compromised, making their designation as probiotics questionable. Additionally, does the application of an inactive probiotic directly into the oral cavity make sense? While the dormancy may allow for survival on its way towards the gut, does it affect their capacity for oral colonisation? To evaluate this, 21 probiotic product for oral health were analysed for the number of viable (probiotic), culturable (CFU) and dead (postbiotic) cells, to verify whether the commercial products indeed contain what they proclaim. After isolating and uniformly lyophilizing three common probiotic species in a simple yet effective lyoprotective medium, the adhesion to saliva covered hydroxyapatite discs of lyophilized probiotics was compared to fresh or reactivated lyophilized probiotics. Unfortunately, many of the examined products failed to contain the claimed amounts of viable cells, but also the strains used were inadequately characterized and lacked clinical evidence for that unknown strain, questioning their label of a 'probiotic'. Additionally, lyophilized probiotics demonstrated low adhesive capacity compared to their counterparts, prompting the question of why fresh or reactivated probiotics are not currently used.
益生菌已通过影响微生物群和宿主展现出对口腔健康的益处。尽管前景广阔,但它们目前的应用可能受到一些限制。其中一个限制因素在于益生菌产品的现行制备方式。为了使益生菌商业化,通过干燥或冷冻干燥暂时使活的益生菌失活来实现产品的货架期稳定性。尽管冻干益生菌可以长时间保持休眠状态,但其活力可能会严重受损,这使得它们作为益生菌的认定受到质疑。此外,将无活性的益生菌直接应用于口腔有意义吗?虽然休眠可能使其在前往肠道的途中存活,但这会影响它们在口腔定殖的能力吗?为了评估这一点,对21种口腔健康益生菌产品的活菌(益生菌)、可培养菌(CFU)和死菌(后生元)数量进行了分析,以验证市售产品是否确实含有其宣称的成分。在一种简单而有效的冻干保护介质中分离并统一冻干三种常见的益生菌菌株后,将冻干益生菌对唾液包被的羟基磷灰石圆盘的粘附性与新鲜或重新活化的冻干益生菌进行了比较。不幸的是,许多被检测的产品未能含有宣称数量的活细胞,而且所使用的菌株特征描述不充分,缺乏针对该未知菌株的临床证据,这对它们“益生菌”的标签提出了质疑。此外,与新鲜或重新活化的益生菌相比,冻干益生菌表现出较低的粘附能力,这引发了为什么目前不使用新鲜或重新活化益生菌的问题。