Statistical considerations for the design of randomized, controlled trials for probiotics and prebiotics

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

By Prof. Daniel Tancredi, UC Davis, USA

The best evidence for the efficacy of probiotics or prebiotics generally comes from randomized controlled trials. The proper design of such trials should strive to use the available resources to achieve the most informative results for stakeholders, while properly accounting for the consequences of correct and incorrect decisions. It is crucial to understand that even well-designed and -executed studies cannot entirely eliminate uncertainty from statistical inferences. Those inferences could be incorrect, even though they were made rigorously and without any procedural or technical errors. By “incorrect”, I mean that the decisions made may not correspond to the truth about those unknown population parameters. Those parameters involve the distribution of study variables in the entire population, but our inferences are inductive and based on just the fraction of the population that appeared in our sample, creating the possibility for discordance between those parameters and our inferences about them. Although rigorous statistical inference procedures can allow us to control the probabilities of certain kinds of incorrect decisions, they cannot eliminate them.

For example, consider a two-armed randomized controlled trial designed to address a typical null hypothesis, that the probability of successful treatment is the same for the experimental treatment as for the comparator. Depending on the analytical methods to be employed, that null hypothesis could also be phrased as saying that the difference in successful treatment probabilities between the two arms is zero or that the ratio of the successful treatment probabilities between the two groups is one. Suppose the study sponsor has two possible choices regarding the null hypothesis, either to reject it or fail to reject it. (The latter choice is colloquially called “accepting the null hypothesis”, but that is a bit of an overstatement, as the absence of evidence for an effect in a sample typically does not rise to the level of being convincing evidence for the absence of an effect in the population.)

With these two choices about the null hypothesis, there are two major types of “incorrect decisions” that can be made: the null hypothesis could be true for the population but the study data led to a decision to reject the null hypothesis, a result conventionally called a “Type-1” error. Or the null hypothesis could be false for the population but the study data led to a decision not to reject the null hypothesis, conventionally called a “Type-2” error. Conversely, there are also two potentially correct decisions. One could fail to reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true for the population, a so-called “true negative”, or one could reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is not true, a so-called true positive.

The consequences of these four different decision classifications vary from one stakeholder to another, and thus it is unwise to rely solely and simply on commonly used error probabilities when planning studies. The wiser approach is to set the error probabilities so that they properly account for the relative gains and losses to a stakeholder that arise from correct and incorrect decisions, respectively. From long experience assessing the design of clinical trials for probiotics and prebiotics, I recommend that stakeholders in the design phase of studies give thought to the following three statistical considerations.

Pay attention to power

Power is the probability of avoiding a type-2 error—in other words, under the condition that an assumed true effect exists in a study population and that the type-1 error has been controlled at a given value, power is computed of the probability of avoiding the incorrect decision to fail to reject the null hypothesis. Standard practices are to set the type-1 error at 5% and to determine a sample size that achieves 80% power for an assumed alternative hypothesis, one stating that the true effect is of a specific given magnitude, one corresponding to a so-called meaningful effect size. That effect size is typically called a ‘minimum clinically significant difference’ (MCSD) or something similar, because ideally the assumed effect size would be the smallest of the values that would be clinically important, although as a practical matter — because the higher the magnitude of the effect size, the lower the sample size requirements and thus the better the chance of the study being perceived as “affordable” to study sponsors — the MCSDs used to power studies are often larger than some of the values that would also be clinically significant. Nevertheless, let’s consider what it means for the sponsor to accept that the study should be powered at merely the conventional 80% level. Under the assumptions that the true effect in the population is the MCSD and that the study achieves its target sample size, a sponsor of a study that has only 80% power is taking a 1-in-5 chance that the sample results would not be statistically significant (and that the null hypothesis would fail to be rejected).  Such an incorrect decision could have major adverse implications for the sponsor (and for potential beneficiaries of the intervention), particularly given the investments that have been made in the research program and the implications the incorrect decision could have for misinforming future decisions regarding the specific intervention and indeed related interventions.  A 20% risk may not be worth taking.

All other considerations being equal, the risk of a type-2 error could be lowered by increasing the sample size. Under regular asymptotic assumptions that generally apply, increasing the target sample size by about one-third would cut a 20% type-2 error risk in half, to 10%. Increasing the target sample size by two-thirds reduces it all the way to 5%.

Define the true minimum clinically significant effect size applicable to your study

Another important question is where to set the minimum clinically significant effect. Often that effect is based on prior studies without any adjustment—but this can neglect key considerations. Prior effects of an intervention are typically biased in a direction that overstates the benefits of the intervention, especially if the intervention emerged from smallish early-phase studies. More fundamentally, from the perspective of decision theory the estimated effects seen in prior studies do not specifically address what could truly be the minimum clinically meaningful effect when one considers the possible benefits, risks, and costs of the intervention. Probiotics and prebiotics are typically relatively benign interventions in terms of adverse events, so it could be that even more modest favorable impacts on health than were seen in prior studies are still worthwhile.

Powering your study based on what truly is a minimal clinically meaningful effect may lead to a better overall strategy for optimizing net gains, while giving the intervention an appropriately high chance of showing that it works. Although the smaller the assumed effect size, the larger the required sample size needed to detect it (all other factors being the same), a proper assessment of the relative risks and benefits of the intervention and, also, of correct and incorrect decisions about the intervention, may provide a strong basis for making that investment.

In addition, there is another important but often overlooked aspect when deciding on what is a worthwhile improvement. We frequently turn to clinicians to determine what would be a worthwhile improvement, and it is natural for a clinician to address that question by considering what would be a meaningful improvement for a patient who responds to the intervention. Keep in mind, though, that an intervention could be worthwhile for a population if it achieves what would be a worthwhile improvement for a single patient–say, a mean improvement of 0.2 SD on a quality-of-life scale—in only a fraction of the patients in the overall population, say 50%. There are many conditions for which having an intervention that works for only large subsets of the population could be valuable in improving the population’s overall health and wellness. Using this example, where the worthwhile improvement for an individual is 0.2 SD and the worthwhile responder percentage is 50%, then the worthwhile improvement that should be used to power the study would be 0.1 SD, which is equal to (0.2 SD * 50%) + (0 SD * 50%), with the latter product quantifying an assumed absence of a benefit in the non-responders. What should be gleaned from this example is that the minimum clinically important effect for a population is typically less than the minimum clinically important effect for an individual. The effect used to power the study should be the one that applies to the relevant population. Again, that effect should be chosen so that it balances benefits relative to the costs and harms of the intervention while accounting also for variation in whether and how much individuals in the population may respond. When study planners fail to account for this variation, the result is a study that is underpowered for detecting meaningful population-level effects.

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio

In general, effect sizes can be expressed analogously to a mean difference divided by a standard error, and thus can be thought of as a signal-to-noise ratio. Sample size requirements depend crucially on this signal-to-noise ratio. Typically, standard errors are proportional to outcome standard deviations and inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size. The latter is key because it means that in case an expected signal would be cut in half, the noise would also need to be cut in half to maintain the signal-to-noise ratio, which means that if you cannot alter the outcome standard deviation, then you would need to quadruple the sample size. This also applies in the opposite direction, happily: if you can double the expected signal-to-noise ratio, you would only need one-fourth the sample size to achieve the desired power, all other things being equal.

Signal-to-noise ratios can be optimized by designing a trial for a judiciously restricted target population (of potential responders) and by using high-quality outcome measurements for the trial to reduce noise. Although research programs may eventually aim to culminate in large pragmatic trials that show meaningful improvements associated with an intervention even in populations of individuals with wide variations in their likelihood and amount of potential response, it is generally wise up to that stage in a research program to focus trials so that they give accurate information as to whether the intervention works in populations targeted for being more apt to be responsive to an intervention. To do that, for example, the trial methods should include accurate assessments for whether potential recruits are currently experiencing, say, symptoms from whatever condition the intervention is intended to address and whether the recruit would be able to achieve the desired dose of whatever the trial assigns to them. For a truly beneficial intervention, it is easier to continue a research program advancing the development of that intervention if the intervention sustains a consecutive string of “true positive” results from when it began to undergo trials, avoiding a potentially fatal type-2 error (“false negative”).

Careful attention to the above considerations can lead to better trials, ones that combine rigor and transparency with a tailored consideration of the relative costs and benefits of potentially fallible statistical inferences, so that the resulting evidence is as informative as possible for stakeholder decision-making.

Episode 32: How microbes and mucus interact in the gut

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

How microbes and mucus interact in the gut, With Dr. Mindy Engevik PhD

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

How microbes and mucus interact in the gut, With Dr. Mindy Engevik PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP hosts discuss mucus-microbe interactions in the digestive tract with Dr. Mindy Engevik PhD from the Medical University of South Carolina, USA. They discuss how mucus in the gut is produced and degraded, and different ways that pathogens and commensal microbes interact with the mucus layer. Dr. Engevik describes some different ways that commensal bacteria make use of mucus, as well as dietary influences on gut mucus production.

Key topics from this episode:

  • The gut epithelium has special cells called goblet cells that actively secrete mucus. In the small intestine, mucus forms a light barrier but in the colon, it forms a thicker barrier with two layers: an inner layer free of microbes, and an outer layer where mucus and microbes coexist.
  • Bacteria in the gut make use of mucus in different ways. Many microbes have the capacity to degrade mucus, and it can provide a carbon source for bacteria to survive. Even bacterial quorum sensing can be influenced by mucus.
  • Bifidobacteria increase mucus production. Akkermansia are good at degrading mucus and also increasing mucus production. Pathogens, however, degrade the mucus and cause inflammation so mucus production is suppressed.
  • Several human diseases involve a dysfunctional gut mucus layer – for example, inflammatory bowel disease.
  • Various models are used for studying mucus – for example, traditional cell lines and human intestinal organoids.
  • Dr. Engevik’s work has found interactions between Clostridioides difficile and Fusobacterium nucleatum in the gut: these bacteria can interact to form biofilms that are more antibiotic-resistant than normal.
  • Individual differences exist in gut microbes as well as glycan structure in the gut, so the best insights will likely come from understanding the entire network of microorganisms, metabolites, and mucus. 
  • Dietary components influence the gut microbiota, which influences mucus production in the gut. High dietary fiber increases the amount of mucus produced by the goblet cells. Some bacteria degrade dietary substrates, then switch over to mucus when they don’t get what they need from the diet.
  • Dr. Engvik is an avid science communicator and advocates for scientists being present on social media. She has found science communication a great way to engage with the public as well as fostering scientific collaborations. The Instagram account showing microscopy images from her lab is @the_engevik_labs

Episode links:

About Dr. Mindy Engevik PhD:

Mindy Engevik is an Assistant Professor at the Medical University of South Carolina. She has Ph.D. in Systems Biology & Physiology and an interest in microbe-epithelial interactions in the gastrointestinal tract. Her lab focuses on how commensal friendly bacteria in the human gut interact with intestinal mucus and she tries to leverage this information to treat intestinal disorders. You can follow her on Twitter at @micromindy.

New paper outlines the value of studying probiotics in the small intestine

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

Even though the human digestive tract extends from the mouth down through the small and large intestines, the study of probiotics and their activities has tended to focus on the colon. While the colon (or perhaps more accurately its proxy, the faecal sample) is relatively accessible and easy to study, recently some researchers have argued that crucial information can be gained from looking at another digestive tract site: the small intestine.

A recent paper published in Cell Reports Medicine, titled Small intestine vs. colon ecology and physiology: Why it matters in probiotic administration, laid out the differences between probiotic actions and interactions in the small intestine versus the large intestine. The paper was the result of work by an expert group of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe – the Probiotics Taskforce.

The authors of the paper say the duodenum (the first part of the small intestine) is the most dynamic part of the digestive tract. The small intestine as a whole is the site where most of the body’s digestion and absorption takes place, it is also a site of high immune activity. Even though ingested materials move through this area more rapidly than the large intestine, the small intestine allows closer interaction between host and microbes because it has a lower rate of mucus secretion and looser gut barrier junctions. The microbiota of the small intestine is primarily shaped by the digestion and resulting abundance of simple carbohydrates and amino acids, whereas the colonic microbiota is driven by the metabolism of the remaining complex carbohydrates. These factors and others create very different environments for probiotic interaction and activity.

While the most relevant clinical question for a probiotic strain may be what health benefit it confers in the host, researchers may also be interested in gut microbiota manipulation via probiotics to transform host-microbe interactions at discrete locations in the digestive tract – potentially yielding new or improved benefits for the host. The paper raises the possibility of novel probiotics discovered or developed in the future to specifically target the small intestine.

Accessibility of the small intestine, however, remains a challenge. While animal and in vitro models can lead to valuable insights, the authors of the paper point to the need for more sensitive and cost-effective tools for sampling the small intestine in human study participants.

See this Q&A with the paper’s lead author, Dr. Arthur Ouwehand PhD, Global Health & Nutrition Sciences, International Flavors & Fragrances, Finland.

Why is it important to think about how probiotics interact at sites other than the colon?

Nutrient absorption, entero-hepatic circulation, and energy regulation are all happening in the small intestine and have a major impact on our health. Even some forms of diarrhoea originate from the small intestine. So, we should be better aware what happens in the small intestine and how probiotics may influence these processes.

What clues do we have that the small intestine is an important site for probiotic activity?

The most common argument is that the microbial numbers in the small intestine are much smaller and hence (with less competition) probiotics can better exert an effect there. Is that true? We don’t know yet, because small intestinal samples have been difficult to collect. We need to better understand what is happening in the human small intestine.

Do small intestinal interactions depend on the specific probiotic?

Very likely. Also interesting is how diet would shape the effects of the probiotic in the various parts of the small intestine.

What are some of the main questions researchers still need to address regarding how probiotics act in the small intestine?

  • What is the microbiota in the small intestine and how is it influenced?
  • What do these changes in composition and activity mean?
  • How can the small intestinal microbiota be influenced in a meaningful way?

How do you think researchers will overcome the challenges of gathering information about the small intestine?

Capsules that sample the small intestine are nothing new. They were already developed in the 1960s. Better and more affordable capsules are now coming on the market, so minimally invasive sampling of the human small intestine will soon be much more feasible. These new technologies should expand our understanding of the microbiota in different parts of the small intestine, and how probiotics interact in this environment.

Episode 31: Microbial species and strains: What’s in a name?

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

Microbial species and strains: What’s in a name? with Dr. Jordan Bisanz PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP podcast hosts speak with Dr. Jordan Bisanz PhD, Assistant Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Penn State University in State College, USA. They discuss how to define a bacterial strain, the diversity of strains within a species, and how genetic differences correspond with functional differences. They also talk about manipulating microbial communities for insights about health and disease.

Key topics from this episode:

  • Dr. Bisanz says just because strains within a species are genetically related doesn’t mean they do the same things. Bacteria gain and lose genes rapidly, but we don’t yet know what a lot of those genes do.
  • Natural variation in strains can be used as a tool to find out the functions of genes. 
  • Metagenomics illuminates strain-level differences, but that assumes we know what makes a strain. There’s no single accepted definition of a strain.
  • Knowing the mechanisms behind the effects of a strain on a host is important for predicting if closely related strains will have the same effect.
  • Moving forward, it could be useful to have functional information to go along with strains and their taxonomic descriptors.
  • Dr. Bisanz’s lab tests experimentally how microbial genes are gained and lost in vivo, both through wetlab experiments and computational approaches.
  • Experiments on strains are essential – for example, two strains with differences in 1000 SNPs might be functionally the same, while differences in 2-3 key SNPs might make a big difference.
  • When testing probiotic effects, you may be testing something derived from the original microbial genome but not identical. How can this be managed in industry? Understanding the mechanisms is important, strains that function similarly can qualify as the same strain.
  • A microbiome involves multiple microbes working together, acting differently from all the strains in isolation.
  • Dr. Bisanz studies tractable microbial communities: find the microorganisms that are different in a disease state compared to a healthy state, and create a synthetic community of the microbes that are absent. What are the functions of this community?
  • The challenge is that microbiologists need to be able to manipulate the microbes but cannot do this in a whole human fecal sample.
  • Is gut microbiome sequencing useful? At the level of individual, it may not provide value. But putting the data all together, in the future it may provide interesting information. The challenge with interpretation is that the microbiome is driving, but also responding to, dietary inputs.
  • In the microbiome field, gnotobiotic models (using humanized mice) need to be taken a step further than they currently go – specifying not only which microbes established in the host, but also how they could plausibly affect the mechanism.

Episode abbreviations and links:

Additional resources:

About Dr. Jordan Bisanz PhD:

Jordan Bisanz is an assistant professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Pennsylvania State University and the One Health Microbiome Center. The Bisanz lab combines computational analyses and wet lab experimentation to understand how gut microbes interact with each other and their host. The lab specializes in coupling human intervention studies with multi ‘omics approaches and gnotobiotic models to understand how host-microbe interactions shape health generating both mechanistic insights and translational targets.

Bridging the Gap Between Probiotic and Microbiome Research

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

By Prof. Sarah Lebeer PhD, University of Antwerp, Belgium

September was an eventful month for me, as I had the privilege of participating in various scientific gatherings. These include co-organizing the 14th Symposium on Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB14) in the Netherlands (LAB symposium), attending the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group workshop (EHMSG) in my hometown of Antwerp, joining the Human Microbiome Symposium at EMBL Germany, and participating in the 7th International Conference on Microbial Diversity conference in Parma. These events provided me with valuable opportunities to share insights from our Isala vaginal microbiota project (https://isala.be/en) and to engage with leading scientists in the fields of the human microbiome, fermented foods, and probiotics, such as Martin Blaser, Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello, Curtis Huttenhower, Jeroen Raes, Peer Bork, Rob Knight, Gene Tyson and Paul Cotter, just to name a few.

Reflecting on these recent interactions, I find it intriguing that the term ‘probiotics’ is relatively infrequently used in discussions at typical microbiome conferences or sessions. It has struck me that a descriptive microbiome study in a specific cohort or patient group often garners more scientific recognition than a human intervention study involving probiotics, which target the microbiome to induce a particular change in health parameters. It’s worth noting that many large-scale solid microbiome papers are published in high-impact journals, whereas probiotic studies tend to find their home in journals with lower impact factors. This discrepancy exists even when most associations observed in microbiome studies are primarily descriptive rather than causal. I must admit to this bias in our own work, having recently published a substantial cohort study (the Isala study) on the vaginal microbiome with over 3300 participants in Nature Microbiology, while our probiotic studies typically appear in lower-impact journals (e.g. this study). Although our Isala study yielded valuable insights, it could only associate 10.4% of questionnaire responses with features of the microbiome composition, with associations rather than causal relationships identified. Nevertheless, we plan to explore these findings further through intervention studies (including probiotic, dietary, and lifestyle interventions) and more mechanistic research (https://isala.be/en ). Similarly, the extensive gut microbiome cohort study conducted by Jeroen Raes’ team in Belgium and published in Science could explain only 7.6% of the associations with the extensive metadata collected.

While we do all acknowledge the value and strength of such large microbiome cohort studies, probiotic intervention studies offer a unique advantage in investigating causality. In such studies, live microorganisms (or mixtures thereof) are deliberately administered in specific formulations and evaluated for their health benefits to the host. Probiotics often do not work via (gut) microbiome modulation (as more broadly discussed in this ISAPP podcast episode), but undoubtedly interact in the same complex environment. ISAPP has long championed the importance of rigorous and well-controlled clinical trials to assess the value of interventions, but the results, while scientifically valuable, are seldom sensational. This shouldn’t come as a surprise because modifying the health status of a living host with a single intervention, be it a probiotic or a single drug molecule, is a complex task. If you’ve ever listened to a lecture or read a paper by ISAPP President Dan Merenstein (if not, check this ISAPP podcast episode), you’ll recall his emphasis on the high number-needed-to-treat (NNT) in many traditional drug interventions. If these NNTs are compared for some drugs with probiotics, probiotics actually do not perform badly, and often outperform other interventions in terms of safety.

Probiotics, by their nature, have a multifaceted mode of action, attributed to their status as live microorganisms with an average of 3000 genes and probably even more bioactive molecules expressed. Their effects in a living host are diverse and context-dependent, involving complex modulation of biochemical, immune, and other pathways. While I haven’t conducted the statistical calculations myself, the likelihood of detecting a significant and large-scale effect in probiotic intervention studies does not appear high, especially given that the average probiotic intervention study involves around 74 participants, rarely exceeding 200 participants .

This limitation has contributed to an underwhelming reputation for the science behind probiotics despite the many health benefits demonstrated, as these trials are typically small in scale and constrained by limited budgets and limited number of parameters under investigation. Most of these studies are carried out by university and food company researchers with budgets significantly smaller than those in the pharmaceutical industry, where studies can cost around $40,000 per participant. The microbiome therapeutics and live biotherapeutics (LBPs) field, which includes probiotic products for therapeutic indications and routes, is gradually moving towards more expensive pharmaceutical-style trials, with some FDA-approved trials featuring GMP-produced LBPs. Success stories like REBYOTATM (from Ferring and Rebiotix) and VOWST (formerly SER-109, from Seres) have demonstrated significant benefits in specific conditions (C. difficile infection), which have reduced heterogeneity from the host side. Yet, participant numbers in these trials remain in the same range as many probiotic intervention studies.

Given the available funding from both private and public sources, organizing large clinical trials with specifically designed probiotics as LBPs for all promising health conditions under stringent pharmaceutical conditions is an unrealistic prospect. If probiotic strains can be delivered orally as food supplements, it is likely that current trial practices will continue to be preferred due to budget, logistical, and regulatory considerations, even though they may have limitations in claiming health benefits under less rigorous conditions. These studies, if conducted and analyzed diligently, can still yield valuable and meaningful results.

As scientists actively engaged in both the microbiome and probiotic fields, we should seek greater unity. We must recognize that the science of how live microbes interact with a living host is inherently complex and rarely boils down to a single mode of action resulting in spectacular effects. Although the intended use of probiotics and LBPs differs, both share similar scientific challenges. ISAPP’s definition of probiotics is a valid attempt to embrace this complexity and can apply to most microbial therapeutics or LBPs if the administered microorganisms are well-characterized and quality-controlled.

Let’s acknowledge that, despite their challenges, probiotic trials have already contributed and will likely continue to contribute) unique insights into the intricate world of host-microbe interactions, and these insights can be harnessed to improve human health.

Episode 30: A systems biology perspective on the gut microbiome

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

A systems biology perspective on the gut microbiome, with Dr. Sean Gibbons PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP hosts discuss the microbiome and systems biology with Dr. Sean Gibbons PhD, Associate Professor at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, USA. Prof. Gibbons talks about exploring and manipulating the complex ecology of the microbiome with the aim of engineering outputs of this system. He describes the utility of artificial intelligence in microbiome science and how the microbiome will play a role in personalized medicine in the future, including in the delivery of probiotics and prebiotics.

Key topics from this episode:

  • Dr. Gibbons’ lab primarily focuses on designing bioinformatic tools for exploring and manipulating the complex ecology of the microbiome, and trying to shape the outputs of the system. He emphasizes the need for computational tools alongside traditional microbiological techniques, which are needed to validate computational findings.
  • From the work so far, he says probiotics appear to be efficacious but context-specific, so the effects may appear dampened in trials with heterogeneous participants.
  • He underlines that artificial intelligence (AI) is needed to integrate complexity and predict emergent outputs of a biological system that includes a microbiome. Reductionist approaches are somewhat limited because each component of a complex system may behave differently on its own.
  • Diet is a key way to deliberately manipulate the gut microbiome. Researchers are working on how to push the system in a predictable direction. One approach is to create orthogonal niches for organisms: for example, an item in the diet (such as seaweed) that could support an organism that wouldn’t otherwise be there. His lab is working on tools that predict the likelihood of engraftment of a particular organism in a complex community.
  • Reliable tools are needed to map taxonomic composition onto functional outputs.
  • Two branches existed in the history of AI: (1) extracting new knowledge using approaches such as neural nets, and (2) A symbolic AI family of modelling, in which you already have knowledge and you can use it to make predictions about a system (making use of knowledge graphs).
  • Dr. Gibbons says microbiome measurements will likely be a part of clinical medicine in the future, because the microbiome accounts for individuals’ personalized responses to some interventions that cannot be explained by any other known factor.
  • In the future, we will be able to develop tools for precision prebiotic, probiotic, and dietary interventions through metabolic modelling work. 
  • Many probiotics have great efficacy in a particular context – so one challenge ahead is to find a rational way to deploy these organisms and to prove they work well. We will need to address the regulatory challenges inherent in personalized approaches as well.

Episode links:

About Dr. Sean Gibbons PhD:

Sean Gibbons earned his PhD in biophysics from the University of Chicago in 2015. He completed his postdoctoral work at MIT in 2018. Sean is now an associate professor at the Institute for Systems Biology, in Seattle. His lab studies the ecology and evolution of microbial communities. In particular, Sean is interested in how host-associated bacterial communities influence the health and wellness of the host organism. His group designs computational and wet-lab tools for studying these complex systems. Ultimately, the Gibbons Lab aims to develop strategies for engineering the ecology of the gut microbiome to improve human health.

Why responders and non-responders may not be the holy grail for biotics

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

By Prof. Dan Merenstein MD, Georgetown University Medical Center, USA

In September the New York Times published an article titled “What Obesity Drugs and Antidepressants Have in Common“. It was written by a physician who had personally struggled with weight issues and depression. In his personal journey with these health challenges, he hesitates to undergo any treatments. But he eventually does and experiences much relief from them. Why would a practicing physician hesitate to use approved drugs?

The article opens with this viewpoint: “We like to think we understand the drugs we take, especially after rigorous trials have proved their efficacy and safety. But sometimes, we know only that medications work; we just don’t know why.” He goes on to discuss selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and  the recently approved weight loss drugs, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The former have been widely used for over 40 years, while the weight loss drugs are more recent. For both classes of drugs, we have some ideas how they work but the exact mechanisms have not been elucidated. While this knowledge gap has not prevented wide usage, the author of the article was skeptical about using the drugs if he did not know exactly how they worked. 

When I started studying probiotics 15 years ago, I began to interact with a different group of scientists than I was used to. My new collaborators were basic and applied scientists, not just clinicians. I had opportunities to attend conferences that covered bench science more than clinical evidence.  My perspective as a clinical researcher was different from most of the others in attendance. I was somewhat surprised to learn how much emphasis those scientists placed on understanding mechanisms. On the one hand, intuitively it makes sense. If you know how something functions, you have a lot more confidence that it will do what you expect it to do, and more assured that it can be used safely. You also have a sense that it should work for you. But on the other hand, knowing an intervention is effective is more important than knowing how it achieves its effectiveness.

This emphasis on understanding mechanisms of action for interventions reminds me of the development of beta-blockers, a class of medicines that block epinephrine, and cause the heart to beat slower and with less force. One of the most common test questions I was asked when I was a medical student and resident is: What class of blood pressure medicines are never permissible for a patient with congestive heart failure (CHF)? Well it was obvious to all of us that the answer was clearly beta-blockers, as you wouldn’t want to slow the heart rate and reduce the force of the heart in a patient already suffering from a poorly performing heart. Yet after clinical trials were completed, beta-blockers were shown to be effective treatment for CHF patients and are now a mainstay of CHF treatment. This was counterintuitive considering the drug’s mechanism of action. So in fact, a drug’s mechanism of action does not always lead in a straightforward way to knowledge about which conditions can be treated or which individuals will respond.

Beyond mechanisms of action and individual response

In clinical medicine, we use two important statistics to capture efficacy and safety of an intervention: number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). NNT is the number of patients that need to be treated in order to have an impact on one person, while the NNH is the number of patients who must be treated with an intervention before one patient is harmed.  All interventions have both an NNT and NNH. Obviously, the goal is  a very low NNT and a high NNH. But we are rarely so fortunate. Take for example statins, a medicine many of us take. In patients at low risk of cardiovascular disease, the NNT is 217, which means 1 person out of 217 avoided a nonfatal heart attack by taking statins. Meanwhile, NNH for muscle pain is 21 and for developing diabetes is 204.

NNT and NNH are rarely considered in the biotics field. Yet I commonly encounter discussions about the importance of identifying responders versus non responders to biotic intervention and the need to elucidate the mechanism(s) of action for biotic substances. I believe this is because many of the scientists doing research in biotics come not from a clinical background but more bench research, where the questions really are those of mechanism. Many seem to believe that such knowledge is the Holy Grail of biotics – if only scientists could have such a good grasp of mechanism that they could figure out why certain people responded while others do not. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to identify reasons for differences in individual response. It is what we do in clinical practice every day. When I give someone blood pressure medicine and they don’t respond to it, I wonder – Is it a compliance issue? Is the patient’s blood pressure caused by something that the medicine does not impact? Is the patient taking the medication at the wrong time, with the wrong diet, or with other interfering medicines?  Clinicians always must think about who is responding and who is not responding. However, NNT and NNH for biotics are worth prioritizing.

Data have shown that certain probiotics can get people better from an upper respiratory tract infection 26 hours earlier, or can treat infantile colic, or improve irritable bowel syndrome symptoms with a NNT respectively of 20, 15 and 100, while having a very high NNH. These are great products. But instead what I often hear at conferences is that we need to figure out why some people respond to the probiotics and others do not. I agree, go ahead and figure it out. But have realistic expectations. If two of the most widely used medicines, SSRIs and GLP-1 agonists, have an unclear mechanism, and if statins have an NNT of 217, be realistic about the impact of your probiotic. When a doc prescribes you Lipitor, he doesn’t say, “Good luck –  I hope you are the 0.4% in which it helps and aren’t the 5% that gets muscle cramps.” The hope is that for you, the NNT is 1. And when your strain or product does have an impact, feel free to find ways to improve efficacy but celebrate the impact it has. If possible, maybe compare your NNTs to standard of care, or if no comparison look at your NNT versus NNH to really better understand what your biotic can do.

Episode 29: Human milk oligosaccharides in the infant gut

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

Human milk oligosaccharides in the infant gut, with Dr. Simone Renwick PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP hosts discuss human milk and the infant gut with Dr. Simone Renwick PhD from Mother-Milk-Infant Center of Research Excellence (MOMI CORE) at UC San Diego, USA. Dr. Renwick talks about her work investigating how communities of microbes versus individual microbes in the infant gut metabolize human milk oligosaccharide (HMO) structures, and what we know about the origin and functions of the microbes contained in human milk.

Key topics from this episode:

  • Dr. Renwick studies how components of human milk foster the development of the infant gut microbiota. These components include HMOs (special sugars found in human milk) and the milk microbiota.
  • HMOs cannot be metabolized by the human body, but when microbes in the infant gut break them down, it has health benefits for the infant (because infants who receive no human milk are predisposed to a range of diseases).
  • Dr. Renwick used in vitro models to mimic infant microbiota communities, and found that these communities rapidly degraded the HMOs. This metabolism increased microbes associated with health and suppressed potentially pathogenic microbes. 
  • Although most research on HMOs focuses on bifidobacteria that are specially equipped to break them down, she looked at individual strains within the infant gut community and found approximately 100 species capable of directly degrading HMOs.
  • Once breastfeeding ceases, some microbes in the infant gut adapt to different sources of sugars, but others greatly decrease in abundance.
  • Microbes act differently in a community than on their own. Within a complex community, microbes that are better equipped to degrade the HMOs will act quickly, producing byproducts that are then are available to other members.
  • All of the different in vitro models have their advantages and disadvantages. The spatial relationships of the human body are often missing in in vitro models.
  • Humans appear to have the highest concentration of milk oligosaccharides of any mammal.
  • The milk microbiota is another active area of investigation. Live microbes are present in the mammary gland, but their source is still unknown. They tend to resemble the composition of the microbiota on the skin as well as the infant oral cavity, but curiously, anaerobic bacteria are also found in the milk microbiota. Somehow these microbes may move from the mother’s gut to the milk. These microbes may not directly metabolize HMOs. (See this paper.)
  • Formula companies are beginning to put HMO structures into their products – mainly 2′-Fucosyllactose.

Episode links:

About Dr. Simone Renwick PhD:

Dr. Simone Renwick is the Milk & Microbes postdoctoral fellow at the Mother-Milk-Infant Center of Research Excellence (MOMI CORE) at the University of California, San Diego, USA. Her research focuses on understanding the role of human milk components, such as the human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) and milk microbiota, in fostering the developing infant gut microbiota. She is also interested in the potential therapeutic applications of milk components in diseases that affect adults. Currently, Simone is supervised by Drs. Lars Bode, Rob Knight, Pieter Dorrestein, and Jack Gilbert. Prior to her postdoc, Simone completed her PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) at the University of Guelph, Canada, under the supervision of Dr. Emma Allen-Vercoe.

She was the recipient of the Students and Fellows Association poster prize at the ISAPP 2023 meeting in Sitges, Spain.

Probiotic Administration in Preterm Infants: Scientific Statement

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

Board of Directors, International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics

in collaboration with

Dr. Geoffrey Preidis MD PhD, Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Prof. Andi L Shane MD MPH MSc, Pediatric Infectious Diseases

A recent report of a fatality in an extremely premature infant recipient of a probiotic product has resulted in a warning letter from the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to healthcare practitioners about probiotic supplementation in preterm infants and a warning letter to the probiotic product manufacturer.

Publicly available information suggests that this fatality was the direct consequence of bacteremia resulting from ingestion of the probiotic organism Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis delivered in medium chain triglyceride oil. This situation differs from case reports of adverse events that resulted from extrinsic probiotic product contamination (1, 2). This is an important distinction, as the potential risks and mitigation strategies differ between etiologies. As complete details of this most recent fatality have not been released, specific factors that may have contributed to the adverse outcome are unknown. However, it is worth considering the context of this case report within the broader literature available on probiotic use in this population, including the wealth of data available on sepsis incidence.

Evidence from systematic reviews

Premature infants, especially those of <32 weeks gestation and with a birth weight <1500 g, are a vulnerable population at significant risk of morbidity and mortality.  Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is highly prevalent (5-10% incidence) among very preterm infants, with mortality rates of 20-30% and high morbidity among survivors, including short gut syndrome, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, and neurocognitive delay.

A large body of literature exists on the use of probiotics in hospitalized preterm infants, with particular focus on the prevention of NEC. At least 85 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (3) have been conducted to evaluate the use of probiotics in preterm infants for the prevention of diseases associated with prematurity, and a number of systematic reviews with meta-analyses have analysed these data in recent years. Most RCTs conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) designate sepsis as one of the main outcome measures.

The most recent meta-analysis was published online October 2 in JAMA Pediatrics (3). This study included 106 trials on probiotic, prebiotic, synbiotic and lactoferrin interventions for either preterm infants <37 weeks and/or those with low birth weight (<2500 g). Administration of probiotics containing multiple strains were found to be most effective in the reduction of all-cause mortality (31% reduction), with a 62% decrease in incidence of severe NEC compared to placebo (moderate and high certainty evidence). Single strain probiotics combined with lactoferrin provided greatest efficacy in the reduction of late-onset sepsis incidence (67% risk reduction with moderate certainty evidence). It was noted that none of the included studies reported cases of probiotic-induced sepsis.

Other authors including groups from the Cochrane Collaboration, American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) have found similar results, and studies can be reviewed here:

Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants – Sharif, S – 2023 | Cochrane Library

Probiotics Reduce Mortality and Morbidity in Preterm, Low-Birth-Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials – Gastroenterology (gastrojournal.org)

Probiotics for Preterm Infants: A Strain-Specific Systematic… : Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (lww.com)

No meta-analysis has attributed increased risk of sepsis to probiotic use in preterm infants – rather, in many cases a protective effect (or a trend toward protection) was reported. However, it is important to acknowledge the real but rare risk of probiotic-induced bacteremia in this population. In a recent review of case reports of probiotic-associated invasive infections in children, probiotic-induced bacteremia in premature infants were found to have resolved in most cases with use of effective antimicrobial therapy (4).

With data collected on over 10,000 preterm infants, substantial benefits demonstrated and a low level of risk identified, promise to improve outcomes in preterm infants who receive a probiotic product currently exists. Based on the evidence currently available, hospitals and NICUs across the globe have already adopted practices relating to probiotic use in preterm infants, some with significant health impacts (5, 6).

Risk benefit analysis and considerations for healthcare implementation

Further work needs to be done to support probiotic administration in the NICU. Collaborative efforts include recommendations for practical steps to improve probiotic product quality assurance specifically for NICU use, published in July 2023 in JAMA Pediatrics (7).

It is important to note that few (or possibly no) effective interventions are without an adverse event profile, and probiotics are no exception. Even food has a safety standard of reasonable certainty and on a regular basis, individuals suffer fatal foodborne infections. When considering the clinical indications for any intervention for an individual patient or a population of individuals, a thorough comparison of all available data on both the potential risks and the potential benefits is warranted.

The American Gastroenterological Association (8) and other major societies (including ESPGHAN and the World Gastroenterology Organisation) (9, 10) endorse probiotic products for the prevention of NEC among preterm low birth weight infants. The societies’ guidelines agree that the recommendation to use probiotics is conditional. Conditional recommendations are sensitive to patients’ values and preferences, and to the guideline panel’s perception of risk-benefit balance.  However, the recent FDA letter does not acknowledge these recommendations and further, recommends against probiotic use in preterm infants despite the robust efficacy data. With interventions such as probiotic administration, ideally shared clinical decision-making with patient and clinician would ensue. Regulatory warnings inform the risk-benefit calculation but typically do not invalidate a clinical recommendation.

Summary

  • Probiotic administration to preterm infants has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the risk of NEC, sepsis and death in large systematic reviews with meta-analyses.
  • Meta-analyses have not identified significant adverse events or safety concerns, although rare case reports have documented sepsis attributed to probiotics.
  • Stringent manufacturing standards are recommended for probiotics in vulnerable populations such as preterm infants.
  • Standardized comprehensive safety reporting across probiotic intervention studies is needed, along with funding for the conduct of long term studies.
  • The risks and benefits of probiotic administration should be considered in both the specific population and individual patients, with regulatory frameworks to enable implementation.
  • More information about this fatality should be immediately released so healthcare professionals and researchers can learn from this experience and continue to provide optimal evidence-based patient care.

To inquire about expert academic physicians available for media comment, please contact ISAPP’s Executive Director, Marla Cunningham, at marla@nullisappscience.org

See also:

NEC Society: Statement on FDA Warning of Probiotics in Preterm Infants

References

(1) Vallabhaneni S, Walker TA, Lockhart SR, et al. Notes from the field: Fatal gastrointestinal mucormycosis in a premature infant associated with a contaminated dietary supplement–Connecticut, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(6):155-156.

(2) Bizzarro MJ, Peaper DR, Morotti RA, Paci G, Rychalsky M, Boyce JM. Gastrointestinal Zygomycosis in a Preterm Neonate Associated With Contaminated Probiotics. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2021;40(4):365-367.

(3) Wang Y, Florez ID, Morgan RL, et al. Probiotics, Prebiotics, Lactoferrin, and Combination Products for Prevention of Mortality and Morbidity in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2023 Oct 2:e233849.

(4) D’Agostin M, Squillaci D, Lazzerini M, et al. Invasive Infections Associated with the Use of Probiotics in Children: A Systematic Review. Children (Basel). 2021 Oct 16;8(10):924.

(5)  Rath CP, Athalye-Jape G, Nathan E, et al. Benefits of routine probiotic supplementation in preterm infants. Acta Paediatr. 2023 Jul 28.

(6) Bui A, Johnson E, Epshteyn M, Schumann C, Schwendeman C. Utilization of a High Potency Probiotic Product for Prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Infants at a Level IV NICU. The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2023;28(5):473–475.

(7)  Shane AL, Preidis GA. Probiotics in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit-A Framework for Optimizing Product Standards. JAMA Pediatr. 2023 Sep 1;177(9):879-880.

(8) Su GL, Ko CW, Bercik P, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Role of Probiotics in the Management of Gastrointestinal Disorders. Gastroenterology. 2020 Aug;159(2):697-705.

(9) WGO Practice Guideline: Probiotics and Prebiotics. Available from: https://www.worldgastroenterology.org/guidelines/probiotics-and-prebiotics

(10) van den Akker CHP, van Goudoever JB, Shamir R, et al. Probiotics and Preterm Infants: A Position Paper by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition Committee on Nutrition and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition Working Group for Probiotics and Prebiotics. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020 May;70(5):664-680.

Episode 28: Lactobacilli in the microbiomes of the gut, skin, reproductive tract and more

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

Lactobacilli in the microbiomes of the gut, skin, reproductive tract and more, with Prof. Kingsley Anukam PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP podcast hosts cover a range of topics related to lactobacilli and health with Prof. Kingsley Anukam PhD from Nnamdi Azikiwe University in Nigeria. Prof. Anukam has a special interest in lactobacilli, and studies lactobacilli in microbiomes across many different contexts: fermented foods, skin, gut, and reproductive tract sites. He talks about the wide range of research he has led in Nigeria using diverse sources of funding.

Key topics from this episode:

  • Prof. Anukam describes his collaboration with Prof. Gregor Reid PhD early in his career, prompted by a paper claiming that African women did not have vaginal microbiomes dominated by lactobacilli. Subsequent work showed this was not the case – confounding factors contributed to the initial result.
  • He cautions researchers against making conclusions about race or ethnicity when geographical variations or other factors could better account for the differences between groups. In studies it’s important to specify the geography as well as the other factors (dietary, cultural) that may impact the gut microbiome in these populations.
  • There is a long history of fermented foods in Africa but not a lot of research has been done on them. In a 2009 paper with Prof. Reid, Prof. Anukam reported isolated lactic acid species from a fermented food called okpeye produced in Eastern Nigeria. The isolates showed potential for industrial applications.
  • Most of his research studies are funded from outside Nigeria, with different sources of funding.
  • ‘Parachute’ science is common in Africa, where researchers come into an African country, obtain samples and leave. He encourages researchers to involve local scientists to build capacity and allow them to do the analysis.
  • Prof. Anukam describes a clinical trial he led on the skin microbiome and malodor in Nigerian youth. He found the skin microbiome in the armpit was altered if individuals used deodorants and antiperspirants; and these individuals kept having the same malodor issues. Individuals with less odor were found to have more lactobacilli on the skin, with differences in composition between men and women. They developed a topical cream to use as an intervention for 14 days, and found that lactobacilli on the skin increased and less odor was reported.
  • The microbiome(s) of the male reproductive organs have not been studied very much. Semen has a microbiome, and this is shown by both culture and non-culture methods. It is dominated by lactobacilli, and this corresponds with semen quality. The evidence is mixed on the existence of testes and prostate microbiomes. A gut-testes connection may exist, however, as shown in mouse studies.
  • Prof. Anukam says in a study of subjects seeking reproductive healthcare, different microbiomes were observed both in males and females having difficulty conceiving.
  • The semen microbiome could play a significant role in reproduction – for example, it may produce metabolites that could affect the female reproductive tract and influence the environment for conception to take place. When doing in vitro fertilization, evidence has shown that if the samples are contaminated by pathogens, it can be difficult to achieve conception.

Episode links:

About Prof. Kingsley Anukam PhD:

Kingsley C Anukam is a research scientist in human microbiome and biotherapeutics with over 20 years experience. He shares his time between Canada and Nigeria as an adjunct professor at Nnamdi Azikiwe University where he assists in the training and supervision of post graduate students working in the area of probiotics, fermented foods, human microbiome, infectious diseases, laboratory diagnostics, human genomics and forensic DNA analysis. He had his graduate education in Nigeria and post doctorate training in Dr. Gregor Reid’s Lab at Lawson Health Research Institute and Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Western University, Canada. He is the first from Africa to show that vaginal microbiome of healthy Nigerian women is similar to women from other populations irrespective of geographical location. He has sequenced and annotated the full genome of over 10 Lactobacillus species of African origin mainly from the reproductive tract and African fermented foods in collaboration with Prof. Sarah Lebeer. He played a significant role in the formation of the DORA project, an ISALA-inspired citizen science for vaginal health in Nigeria. He has over 80 scientific research publications in peer-reviewed journals and listed among first 10 most cited researcher at Nnamdi Azikiwe University by Google Scholar. He is currently the Chief Editor, Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, and a peer-reviewer of several international journals.

Inaugural nominations open for ISAPP Award: The Sanders Award for Advancing Biotic Science

/in News /by KC

With this year’s retirement of ISAPP’s longtime Executive Science Officer, Dr. Mary Ellen Sanders PhD, the ISAPP board of directors sought a suitable way to honor her contributions in advancing scientific development in the fields of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. Many scientists in these fields have commended Mary Ellen’s leadership, initiative, collaboration, and communication over the last 20 years.

Board members decided to launch a new award in Mary Ellen’s honor: The Sanders Award for Advancing Biotic Science. This award aims to promote excellence in the biotic field and recognize exceptional achievement across a range of potential endeavours including research, scientific communication and stakeholder engagement. A cash grant and travel to the ISAPP meeting will be awarded to the annual recipient starting in 2024.

Prof. Gregor Reid PhD, ISAPP co-founder and former board member, who championed the award, says: “What better way to applaud leadership and someone who has placed honesty, stewardship and evidence-based progress above all else, than to have an annual celebration of advancement in these critically important fields.”

The ISAPP board invited members of the ISAPP community to donate to a special endowment fund in order to sustain the Sanders Award over the long term, and this fund received over $34,000 of donations.

ISAPP President, Prof. Dan Merenstein MD, says: “We have really appreciated and been touched by the generous individual and company donations. But none of that is surprising because Mary Ellen has been a positive force in this field since the beginning and everyone who works with her respects and enjoys working with her.”

The award was launched in August, 2023 and nominations are open through to November, 2023.

Find out more about the award here.

Microbiota from a surprising source—baby kangaroos—might decrease cattle methane production

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

By Prof. Seppo Salminen, University of Turku, Finland

One of the major contributors to greenhouse gas production is the final stage of anaerobic fermentation in the rumen (pre-stomach compartment) of cattle, which produces methane. The process is the top agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. In addition, the formation of methane is associated with approximately 10% energy loss in animals.

To ameliorate the drawbacks of methanogenesis, scientists at Washington State University explored the potential of homoacetogenic microbes (i.e. those that promote the production of acetate),  and especially Acetobacterium woodii, to outcompete methanogens and thereby reduce methane production in the rumen of production animals.

For this purpose, original inoculum of rumen samples were obtained from freshly slaughtered cows and developed into stable consortia of methanogens. Meanwhile, homoacetogenic cultures were developed from baby kangaroo droppings obtained from a wallaby ranch in Washington State. The original baby kangaroo sample had no methanogens present. Rumen bioreactors were inoculated with the bovine study samples and kangaroo gut microbes, and monitored for methane production and kinetics.

The investigators reported that acetogens are dominant in kangaroos, and in their presence methanogens are generally inhibited. The researchers suggested that kangaroos have interesting novel acetogens that utilize hydrogen, which rumen fermentation produces. These acetogens are potential probiotics, once they are well characterized and the benefits to rumen fermentation are documented.

This study also suggests that a variety of kangaroo acetogens should be further explored for their potential use in controlling rumen fermentation and reduction of greenhouse gas production. At the same time, additional benefits of acetogens from other marsupials could be explored and new findings are possible for potential biotic (pro-, pre-, syn- and postbiotic) development.

 

 

 

 

 

Episode 27: Investigating the benefits of live dietary microbes

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

Investigating the benefits of live dietary microbes, with Prof. Colin Hill PhD and Prof. Dan Tancredi PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP podcast hosts themselves are the experts: Prof. Colin Hill PhD from APC Microbiome Ireland / University College Cork and Prof. Dan Tancredi PhD from University of California – Davis talk about their recent work investigating the health benefits from consuming higher quantities of live dietary microbes – and not just microbes that meet the probiotic criteria.

Key topics from this episode:

  • Profs. Hill and Tancredi were involved with others in a recent series investigations & 3 published papers on whether there should be a recommended daily intake of live microbes.
  • Prof. Hill started by writing a blog, prompted by the finding that meta-analyses on probiotics tended to show some general benefits for health. Would this apply to any safe, live microbes – even those that do not meet the probiotic criteria?
  • Various hypotheses (hygiene hypothesis, old friends hypothesis, missing microbes hypothesis) posit that a lack of microbes is associated with poorer health.
  • Clean water and clean food have reduced the burden of infectious disease. But at the same time, across populations there has been an increase in chronic diseases. Could a lack of live dietary microbes be contributing to this increase in chronic disease, because the immune system lacks adequate inputs? Or in other words, could there be a general health benefit for healthy people in consuming high quantities of live microbes?
  • To address the hypothesis scientifically: they investigated the health status of people who eat large vs. small numbers of safe live microbes in their diets. Starting with NHANES data in the US, the researchers classified foods into categories of high / medium / low numbers of live microbes.
  • Note that not all fermented foods contain live microbes, but some contain high numbers of live microbes. A possible confounding factor in the analysis was that high microbe foods tend to be healthier foods.
  • The researchers published a series of 3 papers. The 3rd paper showed an association between intake of live microbes and various (positive) measurements of health. Consistent, modest improvements were seen across a range of health outcomes.
  • This is an association, but statistically the team did use regression analysis to statistically adjust for effects on health that could be due to other factors besides the live microbial intake.
  • The take-home is not to eat unsafe or rotten food, but rather to eat more high-microbe or fermented foods, and in general eat a healthy diet.

Episode links:

Additional Resources:

Live Dietary Microbes: A role in human health. ISAPP infographic.

About Prof. Colin Hill PhD:
Colin Hill has a Ph.D in molecular microbiology and is a Professor in the School of Microbiology at University College Cork, Ireland. He is also a founding Principal Investigator in APC Microbiome Ireland, a large research centre devoted to the study of the role of the gut microbiota in health and disease. His main interests lie in the role of the microbiome in human and animal health. He is particularly interested in the effects of probiotics, bacteriocins, and bacteriophage. In 2005 Prof. Hill was awarded a D.Sc by the National University of Ireland in recognition of his contributions to research. In 2009 he was elected to the Royal Irish Academy and in 2010 he received the Metchnikoff Prize in Microbiology and was elected to the American Academy of Microbiology. He has published more than 600 papers and holds 25 patents. More than 80 PhD students have been trained in his laboratory. He was president of ISAPP from 2012-2015.

About Prof. Dan Tancredi PhD:
Daniel J. Tancredi, PhD, is Professor in Residence of Pediatrics in the University of California, Davis School of Medicine. He has over 25 years of experience and over 300 peer-reviewed publications as a statistician collaborating on a variety of health-related research. A frequent collaborator on probiotic and prebiotic research, he has attended all but one ISAPP annual meeting since 2009 as an invited expert. In 2020, he joined the ISAPP Board of Directors. Colin Hill and Daniel co-host the ISAPP Podcast Series “Science, Microbes, and Health”. On research teams, he develops and helps implement effective study designs and statistical analysis plans, especially in settings with clusters of longitudinal or otherwise correlated measurements, including cluster-randomized trials, surveys that use complex probability sampling techniques, and epidemiological research. He teaches statistics and critical appraisal of evidence to resident physicians; graduate students in biostatistics, epidemiology, and nursing; and professional scientists. Dan grew up in the American Midwest, in Kansas City, Missouri, and holds a bachelor’s degree in behavioral science from the University of Chicago and masters and doctoral degrees in mathematics from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He lives in the small Northern California city of Davis, with his wife Laurel Beckett (UC Davis Distinguished Professor Emerita), their Samoyed dogs Simka and Milka, and near their two grandkids.

Clarifying the role of metabolites in the postbiotic definition

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

By Dr. Gabriel Vinderola PhD, Instituto de Lactología Industrial (CONICET-UNL), Faculty of Chemical Engineering, National University of Litoral, Santa Fe, Argentina and and Prof. Colin Hill PhD, School of Microbiology and APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

ISAPP published a definition for the term postbiotics in 2021 that states that “a postbiotic is a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host” (Salminen et al., 2021). This 19-word definition had to distill the content of the accompanying article that ran to over 9,000 words (not including references) and so obviously a lot of nuance was lost. A reading of the full paper should dispel any misconceptions, but we thought it might be timely to discuss what is perhaps the most common misunderstanding.

Some of the previous definitions included metabolites (purified or semi-purified) under the postbiotic concept. We did not agree with this interpretation. For us, the term postbiotics refers to preparations that consist largely of intact microbial cells, or preparations that retain some or all of the microbial biomass contained in microbial cells. This latter concept was captured in the phrase “and/or their components” The first column of page 3 of Salminen et al., 2021 elaborates on this; “The word ‘components’ was included because intact microorganisms might not be required for health effects, and any effects might be mediated by microbial cell components, including pili, cell wall components or other structures. The presence of microbial metabolites or end products of growth on the specified matrix produced during growth and/or fermentation is also anticipated in some postbiotic preparations, although the definition would not include substantially purified metabolites in the absence of cellular biomass. Such purified molecules should instead be named using existing, clear chemical nomenclature, for example, butyric acid or lactic acid”. So, taken in context, the scope of the ISAPP definition covers inanimate, dead, non-viable microbes; either as intact whole dead cells or in the form of “their components”. We do not consider microbial metabolites to be postbiotics. Such an interpretation would, for example, make butyrate or other end-products of fermentation postbiotics (once shown to have a health benefit). The ISAPP definition does not exclude the likelihood that microbial metabolites will be present in a postbiotic preparation, but it does require that dead microbes or microbial cell fragments or structures should be present to qualify as a postbiotic.

Why did the ISAPP definition exclude purified or semi-purified metabolites in the absence of cellular components? We fully accept that metabolites or other microbe-generated functional ingredients such as lactate, butyrate, bacteriocins, defensins, neurotransmitters, and similar compounds can be present in a postbiotic preparation. But as you can see from this list, these compounds already have names that are clearly understood. The ISAPP definition of postbiotics focuses on the beneficial role of inanimate microbes and/or their components, a category that did not have a clear definition. Postbiotics are simply one category of substances that provide microbe-associated health benefits. In terms of semantics, dictionaries define the prefix ‘post’ as meaning ‘after’ and the word ‘biotic’ as meaning ‘living things’, and so a postbiotic in that context is something that was living and is now after-life, or inanimate. Metabolites are derived from living things, but never had an independent ‘life’ of their own. As a thought experiment, let us imagine a microbe that has been shown to have a health benefit and therefore qualifies as a probiotic. If the same microbe is inactivated and continues to show a health benefit, this new formulation is no longer a probiotic and qualifies as a postbiotic. If this postbiotic preparation can be further purified and it is shown that a metabolite or metabolites in the absence of cells or their components can provide the same health benefit it ceases to be a postbiotic and becomes a health-promoting metabolite. We could imagine microbially-produced vitamins as an example.

Ideally, definitions should be clear without supplemental explanation. But short, simply worded definitions that describe complex concepts must be read in a context. There is a background, they have a scope, there are things that are covered by that definition and things that are not, and of course definitions have their limitations. It would be hard, if not impossible, to include the scope, the background, the coverage and the limitations in a 19-word definition. For instance, the 15-word probiotic definition is “live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host” (Hill et al, 2014). This does not include the idea that probiotics are strain-dependent, a fact that is widely accepted by the field. Other criteria for probiotics not stated in the definition include the fact that that they may be of any regulatory category, that their health benefits must be demonstrated in well-controlled trials in the target host, and that they must be safe (Binda et al. 2020).

In closing, we believe that the postbiotic concept can be an incredibly important scientific, regulatory and commercial concept. That is why we spent the time and effort to arrive at what we hope is a workable definition. We accept that the definition is not perfect but we do think it is useful, and we urge those interested in the future of this important field to read the accompanying paper carefully and to place the definition in its proper context.

See ISAPP’s Postbiotics infographic here.

 

Episode 26: The role of microbes in gut-brain communication

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

The role of microbes in gut-brain communication, with Prof. Emeran Mayer MD

Episode summary:

In this episode, ISAPP podcast host Prof. Dan Tancredi PhD welcomes guest Prof. Emeran Mayer MD, a gastroenterologist and researcher at University of California Los Angeles. They talk about the microbiota-gut-brain axis, covering its evolutionary origins and how this complex system works in the human body to support overall health.

Key topics from this episode:

  • Microbiota-gut-brain communication has a long evolutionary history: microbes have been around for billions of years and they stored a lot of information in their genes. At some point in evolution microbes got inside the digestive tube of a primitive marine animal called hydra and it proved advantageous for this animal.
  • The hydra shows the origin of the human enteric nervous system (ENS): microbes live inside this tube and transfer genes to the nerve cells of this digestive tube, showing the origin of neurotransmitters.
  • Today in humans the neurotransmitters influence gene expression of microbes and change the microbial behaviors; the metabolites produced feed back to the brain.
  • Prof. Mayer’s initial interest as a gastroenterologist was the ENS and how it regulates motility. Subsequently the ENS was found to regulate many gut functions. The gut also houses a large part of the immune system and a complex hormonal system, and all these systems are connected with each other and communicate with the brain.
  • There is an increasing understanding that many chronic diseases relate to Inappropriate engagement of the immune system, starting in the gut.
  • When Prof. Mayer started in the field, the term “gut health” did not exist. Now it’s a ubiquitous term which has associations with wellbeing, acknowledging the gut has influence on many other body systems.
  • The associations between gut (microbiota) and brain health started with provocative animal experiments from Cork, Ireland, in which researchers manipulated the gut microbiome and found changes in emotion-like behaviors of animals. However, it has been difficult to translate to human interventions.
  • How do microbiome-targeted dietary interventions affect the brain? We do know the “Standard American Diet” (deficient in fiber) has changed the gut microbes in a way that compromises the production and maintenance of the gut barrier. 
  • There are many misconceptions about “leaky gut”, but basically contact between beneficial microbes and immune system sensors stimulate the immune system of the gut to low-grade inflammation. This can alter the tight junctions, making the gut more permeable, and ultimately this can affect the brain. Diet can affect the role of microbes in maintaining an effective gut barrier.
  • Prof. Mayer describes how he ended up studying the microbiota-gut-brain axis – he would not have predicted how important and popular this field would become.
  • In the future, there will be more sophisticated and personalized interventions. He sees a paradigm shift happening from reductionist approaches in medicine to systems biological approaches. This field is making us acknowledge that diet will play a major role.

Episode links:

About Prof. Emeran Mayer MD:

Emeran A Mayer is a Gastroenterologist, Neuroscientist and Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, the Executive Director of the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress &amp; Resilience and Founding Director of the Goodman Luskin Microbiome Center at UCLA. He is one of the pioneers and leading researchers in the bidirectional communication within the brain gut microbiome system with wide-ranging applications in intestinal and brain disorders. He has published 415 scientific papers, co edited 3 books and has an h-index of 125. He published the best selling books The Mind Gut Connection in 2016, the Gut Immune Connection in June 2021, and the recipe book Interconnected Plates in 2023. He is currently working on a MasterClass and a PBS documentary about the mind gut immune connection. He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the 2016 David McLean award from the American Psychosomatic Society and the 2017 Ismar Boas Medal from the German Society of Gastroenterology and Metabolic Disease.

Postbiotics: debate continues and the ISAPP definition gains support

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

By Dr. Gabriel Vinderola PhD, Instituto de Lactología Industrial (CONICET-UNL), Santa Fe, Argentina

The publication of a new definition for the term “postbiotics” by ISAPP in 2021 (Salminen et al., 2021a) spurred discussion on a variety of platforms, including scientific journals, social media and in-person debates organized at industry and scientific meetings. A couple of months after the publication of the definition, a group of scientists expressed their disagreement about the new definition (Aguilar-Toalá et al., 2021), and this was followed by a reply in support of the ISAPP definition (Salminen et al., 2021b). An example of the debate on social media is reflected in this post on LinkedIn. The comments that followed the post highlighted points of disagreement and misunderstandings about the ISAPP definition. These reactions were helpful to me in preparing for panels and debates scheduled at 2023 meetings in Amsterdam, Chicago and Bratislava, discussed more fully below.

Prior to the ISAPP panel, many terms were used to refer to non-viable microorganisms that confer a health benefit when administered in adequate amounts: heat-killed probiotics, heat-treated probiotics, heat-inactivated probiotics, tyndallized probiotics, ghost-probiotics, non-viable probiotics, paraprobiotics, cell fragments, cell lysates or postbiotics. ISAPP proposed that going forward, the single term “postbiotic” be used in scientific communications, marketing, regulatory frameworks and to counter the difficulty in tracking of papers for comprehensive systematic reviews. ISAPP’s goal was to bring focus and clarity to the term postbiotic, provide criteria for proper use of the term and set the stage for future innovation in the field.

Two competing terms

When considering preparations of non-viable microorganisms that confer a health benefit, two terms seem to have emerged most dominantly:

The term paraprobiotic was coined by Taverniti and Guglielmetti (2011) and defined as non-viable microbial cells (intact or broken) or crude cell extracts (i.e. with complex chemical composition), which, when administered (orally or topically) in adequate amounts, confer a benefit on the human or animal consumer.

The term postbiotic as proposed by Salminen et al. (2021a) refers to a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host.

The definition of paraprobiotics is limiting in that it does not clarify the scope for metabolites to be present alongside non-viable cells, and this may be problematic as most products of this type developed and marketed so far contain microbial metabolites along with non-viable cells. Further, the definition of paraprobiotics refers to conferring a benefit, but not a health benefit, a divergent way of conceptualizing a ‘biotic’ substance. Probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and as defined above, postbiotics, all stipulate the requirement of conferring a health benefit. In addition, embedding the term ‘probiotic’ into the term paraprobiotic may mislead some to conclude that a paraprobiotic is a dead probiotic, which places a significant burden on any live microbial precursor to first meet the probiotic definition.

Finally, the authors (Taverniti and Guglielmetti 2011) state in their paper: “In addition, once a health benefit is demonstrated, the assignation of a product into the paraprobiotic category should not be influenced by the methods used for microbial cell inactivation, which may be achieved using physical or chemical strategies, including heat treatment, or UV ray deactivation, chemical or mechanical disruption, pressure, lyophilisation or acid deactivation”. Since inactivation technology may have a significant impact on the functionality of a dead microbe, disassociating a paraprobiotic with the method used to inactivate the microbes makes it impossible to know if any given paraprobiotic preparation will be effective.

The definition of postbiotics by Salminen et al. (2021a) anticipates that metabolites may be optionally present in the finished product, requires a health benefit and does not suggest, at any point in the wording, that the progenitor strain of a postbiotic must be a probiotic. Further, although not explicitly stated in the definition, the supporting documentation for the proposal of this definition states that the process to make the postbiotic must be delineated specifically, the progenitor microorganism must be clearly identified and characterized and the final product must be safe for its intended use. This definition encompasses a meaningful and useful scope.

To add to the complexity of the existing landscape, prior to the ISAPP definition of postbiotics, six other definitions of the term postbiotic were proposed in the literature. While these are reviewed in detail in Salminen et al (2021b Supplementary information), many shared the commonality that their focus was bacterial byproducts or metabolites.

Questions about the ISAPP definition of postbiotic

A common question is, “Why did the ISAPP panel choose the term postbiotic to refer to inactivated microbes?” In short, the word seemed most appropriate since post means ‘after’ and biotic means ‘life’.  Further, the panel recognized that although microbial metabolites might contribute to the health benefit conferred by a postbiotic, a preparation containing metabolites alone could be encompassed by a different term. Further, such metabolites (to the extent they are purified from the microbes that produce them) are readily referred to by their chemical names. Microbial metabolites may be present in a postbiotic preparation, but they are not required. The core of the definition of postbiotics is non-viable microbes, either as whole intact cells, disrupted cells or cell fragments. The life termination technology used to manufacture a postbiotic preparation should be stipulated. It cannot be assumed that heat inactivation, radiation, high pressure or any other technology will necessarily render an equally functional inanimate microbe.

Why use the descriptor “inanimate”? This is another common question. This word – meaning lifeless – reflects that the microorganisms should be dead, non-viable, no longer able to grow, to replicate, or, from an applied point of view, to form visible colonies in an enumeration medium or to be detected as live cells in flow cytometry techniques. It was preferred over the term “inactivated” only to call attention to the fact that postbiotics must confer a health benefit and in that sense, are active. For all practical purposes, non-viable can be used as an appropriate synonym.

Questions arise also about the breadth of definition, with concerns that “anything can be a postbiotic”. But broadness of a definition should not be seen as a disadvantage, as long as the limits to the definition are clear. Any microorganisms may be used as a postbiotic, as long as the identity is provided to the strain level, a life termination process is deliberately applied and safety and efficacy are demonstrated in a trial in the target host. Further, a postbiotic is not simply a dead probiotic. A probiotic is shown to confer a health benefit alive and it cannot be assumed that this property is retained when it is dead. Clearly, not anything can be a postbiotic.

Reflections on three recent conferences where the concept of postbiotics was debated

The first debate took place at the Beneficial Microbes conference in Amsterdam in November 2022. The outcomes were reported in a previous blog.

The second panel discussion took place in Chicago, at the Probiota 2023 conference in mid-June. After my talk, an audience poll was taken. Seventy-six out of around 250 attendees voted by an app in their cell phones to the question, How do you define a postbiotic? 68% selected the ISAPP definition, 9% said postbiotics were metabolites produced by probiotics, 4% chose the option “metabolites produced by the gut microbiota”, 14% said “none of the above” (I was curious to know what it would be for them), whereas 4% were not sure. Thus, the ISAPP definition was preferred by the majority. It is interesting to note the composition of the panel debate: three industry representatives and myself. Two of the companies represented presently market products referred to as postbiotics and containing non-viable microbes, whereas for the third company, postbiotics are “molecules created by bacteria”, according to their webpage. A discrepancy in the industry towards what postbiotics are was embodied on the stage. The preference for these meeting participants for the term postbiotic over the term paraprobiotic could be deduced from the meeting program, as the first term was mentioned 56 times, while the second had not one entry.

At Probiota 2023, an officer from Health Canada announced that the regulatory body will start considering the term postbiotics, which was defined in his presentation using the ISAPP definition. As for the quantification units for postbiotics, he indicated that milligrams would be considered currently, although he anticipated the development of more refined methodologies. The topic of what and how to quantify postbiotics is a commonly heard question. I intend to lead a Discussion Group on this topic comprising academic and ISAPP member company representatives at the 2024 ISAPP meeting July 9-11 in Cork, Ireland. If you are an academic expert or an industry member interested in joining the discussion, please reach out to me at gvinde@nullfiq.unl.edu.ar.

Panel discusson on postbiotics at the Bratislava International Probiotic Conference, 2023

A third panel discussion took place late in June in Bratislava at the 16th edition of the International Probiotic Conference. Before the debate, presentations were made by Arthur Ouwehand (IFF Health, Finland), Wilbert Sybesma (Yoba For Life Foundation, The Netherlands) and Eva Armengol (AB-BIOTICS, Spain). These speakers presented examples of postbiotics as they perceived them, which in all cases referred to administered non-viable microbes, in most cases containing microbial metabolites, thereby fitting the ISAPP definition. The fourth speaker, Simone Guglielmetti, proposed separate terms for non-viable microbes, which he proposed to call paraprobiotics, and for metabolites, which he proposed to call postbiotics, according to previous definitions (Taverniti and Guglielmetti, 2011; Tsiliringi and Rescigno, 2013).

There was also a sense of agreement that definitions should encompass current science but not unduly restrict future innovation. Some examples of products presently available in the market that contain non-viable microbes, and have efficacy studies with a clinical endpoint or biomarker enhancement, are:

 

Species or strain/s Composition Reference
B. bifidum MIMBb75 Heat inactivated bacteria https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32277872/
Akkermansia muciniphila Heat inactivated bacteria https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31263284/
L. fermentum CNCM MA65/4E-1b and L. delbrueckii CNCM MA65/4E-2z Heat inactivated bacteria plus metabolites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33281937/
B. breve C50 and S. thermophilus 065 Heat inactivated bacteria plus metabolites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32629970/
Aspergillus oryzae Heat inactivated fungi plus metabolites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33742039/
L. paracasei MCC1849 Heat inactivated bacteria plus metabolites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33787390/
L. sakei proBio65 Bacterial lysate plus metabolites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32949011/
S. cerevisiae Heat inactivated yeasts plus metabolites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21501093/
Vitreoscilla filiformis Bacterial lysate plus metabolites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34976852/
Mixture of pathogens Bacterial lysate plus metabolites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34976852/

 

These ten examples of commercial products based on non-viable microbes all fit the definition of postbiotics conceptualized by Salminen et al. (2021). Only the first two fit the Taverniti and Guglielmetti (2011) definition, as these contain just non-viable microorganisms, without metabolites. This may suggest that products in the current marketplace are best described by the Salminen et al. (2021) concept, which encompasses products based on non-viable microbes, which may or may not also contain microbial metabolites.

Conclusions

In conclusion, I suggest that the term postbiotic and the definition of Salminen et al. (2021a) be used for non-viable microbes (with or without metabolites) able to confer a health benefit, as reflected by the present state of the art and products developed and marketed. If deemed useful by the field, there is room yet for a new term to encompass products developed with microbial metabolites only (devoid of cells). If we consider definitions that mutually exclude non-viable microbes or metabolites, then the vast majority of products present today in the market would not be covered, as most of them deliver non-viable microorganisms and metabolites simultaneously. My overall sense after attending the Chicago and Bratislava meetings is that the meaning of the term postbiotic as mentioned by speakers, included in the meeting programs, seen in posters (future products) and in commercial products presented in booths, refers to the ISAPP definition of non-viable microbes. Time will tell how this term and definition evolves and if a broader consensus can be reached.

 

References

Aguilar-Toalá, J. E., Arioli, S., Behare, P., Belzer, C., Berni Canani, R., Chatel, J. M., D’Auria, E., de Freitas, M. Q., Elinav, E., Esmerino, E. A., García, H. S., da Cruz, A. G., González-Córdova, A. F., Guglielmetti, S., de Toledo Guimarães, J., Hernández-Mendoza, A., Langella, P., Liceaga, A. M., Magnani, M., Martin, R., … Zhou, Z. (2021). Postbiotics – when simplification fails to clarify. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 18(11), 825–826. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-021-00521-6

Salminen, S., Collado, M. C., Endo, A., Hill, C., Lebeer, S., Quigley, E. M. M., Sanders, M. E., Shamir, R., Swann, J. R., Szajewska, H., & Vinderola, G. (2021a). The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 18(9), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-021-00440-6

Salminen, S., Collado, M. C., Endo, A., Hill, C., Lebeer, S., Quigley, E. M. M., Sanders, M. E., Shamir, R., Swann, J. R., Szajewska, H., & Vinderola, G. (2021b). Reply to: Postbiotics – when simplification fails to clarify. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 18(11), 827–828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-021-00522-5

Taverniti V, Guglielmetti S. The immunomodulatory properties of probiotic microorganisms beyond their viability (ghost probiotics: proposal of paraprobiotic concept). Genes Nutr. 2011 Aug;6(3):261-74. doi: 10.1007/s12263-011-0218-x. Epub 2011 Apr 16. PMID: 21499799; PMCID: PMC3145061.

Tsilingiri K, Rescigno M. Postbiotics: what else? Benef Microbes. 2013 Mar 1;4(1):101-7. doi: 10.3920/BM2012.0046. PMID: 23271068.

Episode 25: The effects of metabolites in the colon

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

The effects of metabolites in the colon, with Prof. Kristin Verbeke PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP podcast hosts talk about colonic metabolites with Prof. Kristin Verbeke PhD, from KU Leuven, Belgium. She talks about characterizing microbial metabolism in the colon and the consequences of producing various metabolites, both beneficial ones (such as short-chain fatty acids) and potentially detrimental ones.

Key topics from this episode:

  • Prof. Verbeke is a pharmacist by training, and now leads hospital breath testing and carries out research on microbial metabolites in the gastrointestinal tract, including how prebiotics and probiotics can change bacterial metabolism.
  • The majority of protein in the diet is digested in the small intestine, but about 5% of animal protein and 10-15% of plant protein reaches the large intestine to be fermented by the microbiota. This produces metabolites, which are shown in vitro to be toxic. However, in vivo there is less evidence of toxicity; the negative effects of these metabolites may be reduced by the interactions of different compounds in the colon.
  • Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) are produced when the body digests dietary fiber, and Prof. Verbeke’s group and others are investigating whether they are responsible for the benefits of eating fiber.
  • Most SCFAs are quickly absorbed in the large intestine, and they serve as an energy source for the cells. They then travel to the liver via portal circulation, where they have additional functions. What’s left over reaches systemic circulation.
  • The difficulty is knowing how many SCFAs are produced in the colon, and how many reach systemic circulation. In one experiment, they labeled the SCFAs that were administered to the colon via capsule; 36% ended up in systemic circulation. Further, when SCFAs were administered at physiological doses the subjects receiving them (compared to placebo) showed a lower cortisol response to stress.
  • SCFAs also affect fat oxidation and fat synthesis in the liver. Their relevance to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are being investigated.
  • It’s important to eat fiber, and lots of different types. After fiber consumption, SCFAs increase in a sustained manner and take about 8h to get back to baseline. But with SCFA delivery via capsule they spike quickly and then disappear.
  • As for coatings to deliver to the colon, some coatings are time-dependent, pH dependent, etc. and this is an area for further exploration.

Episode links:

About Prof. Kristin Verbeke PhD:

Kristin Verbeke graduated from the KU Leuven, Belgium as a pharmacist in 1991. She obtained a PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences at the Laboratory of Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry in 1995 and subsequently spend a postdoctoral period in developing radioactively labelled compounds. In 2002, she was appointed at the department of gastroenterology of the Medical Faculty of the Leuven University where she got involved in the use of stable isotope labelled compounds to evaluate gastrointestinal functions. Within the University Hospitals Leuven, she is responsible for the clinical application of diagnostic 13C- and H2-breath tests. Her current research interest specifically addresses the microbial bacterial metabolism in the human colon. Her team has developed several analytical techniques based on mass spectrometry and stable isotope or radioisotope technologies to evaluate several aspects of intestinal metabolism and function in humans (transit time, intestinal permeability, carbohydrate fermentation, protein fermentation, metabolome analysis). Collaborative research has allowed showing an aberrant bacterial metabolism in patient groups with end stage renal failure, inflammatory bowel diseases, irritable bowel disorders and alcohol abuse. These collaborations all have resulted in high quality peer-reviewed papers. In addition, she showed the impact of dietary interventions (modulation of macronutrient composition, pre- or probiotic interventions) on the microbial metabolism and its impact on health. As a PI, she acquired grant support from the university and different funding bodies and successfully completed these projects. Similarly, she supervised several PhD projects that all resulted in the achievement of a PhD degree. Her research resulted in over 200 full research papers. Together with colleague Prof. J. Delcour, she was the beneficiary of the W.K. Kellogg Chair in Cereal Sciences and Nutrition (2010-2020). She is the president of the Belgian Nutrition Society, the vice-chair of the Leuven Food Science and Nutrition Center, and the co-chair of the Prebiotic task force at ILSI Europe. Furthermore, Kristin Verbeke is the editor of the journal Gut Microbiome and member of the editorial board of Gastrointestinal Disorders. Kristin joined the ISAPP Board of Directors in 2023.

What does “gut health” mean?

/in Consumer Blog /by KC

By Prof. Maria Marco PhD, University of California – Davis

Probiotics and prebiotics are frequently marketed to consumers for their capacity to improve or support gut health. Dietitian nutritionists responding to a survey ranked fermented foods as the top superfood for the past six years explaining gut health as a primary reason for their choice. But what is gut health exactly?

As it turns out, there is not a widely accepted definition of gut health. Dr. Stephan Bischoff at the University of Hohenheim, Germany, nicely summarized the situation in a perspective back in 2011. Using criteria from the World Health Organization, he proposed that gut health be defined as “a state of physical and mental well-being in the absence of gastrointestinal complaints that require the consultation of a doctor, in the absence of indications or risks of bowel disease, and in the absence of confirmed bowel disease”. The term gut health has since been increasingly used in scientific publications. However, is gut health really only the absence of complaints or indications, risk, or disease? Is gut health a condition that requires physical and mental well-being?

For the first question, it seems reasonable that gut health would refer to an absence of bowel diseases and acute or even mild symptoms localized to the digestive tract such as food intolerance, abdominal pain, nausea, flatulence, bloating, constipation, and diarrhea. The etiology of these presentations can be traced back to disruptions in the normal functioning of the gastrointestinal tract, including undesired dietary nutrient breakdown and absorption, pathogen introduction and colonization, and intestinal inflammation. However, recent studies of the intestinal environment, encompassing both the intestinal microbiome and mucosa, suggest that an absence of complaints or disease does not directly mean our gut is healthy. Mild mucosal inflammation, increased barrier permeability, or the presence of certain potentially undesirable intestinal microorganisms may confer no overt symptoms, yet still could signify the presence of an undesired or unhealthy intestinal state. The outcomes of that imperceptible unhealthy state may not be realized until years later with the development of intestinal disease or conditions at extraintestinal sites.

This latter point evokes the second question: Is gut health a condition that requires physical and mental well-being? The answer from popular media is – yes! Diseases and chronic conditions that are not overtly related to the gastrointestinal tract, such as allergy, arthritis, obesity, cancer, mood disorders and depression, are now considered by many to be traceable back to gut health. To that regard, it is now well-established scientifically that our gastrointestinal tract is indeed an important organ, housing the majority of our microbiome and mucosal immune system and pivotal for systemic metabolism and neurological signaling. However, I wonder if the term “gut health” is at all appropriate when implying such a broad range of whole-body responses? Could it be that “gut health” is seen as the root or origin of our overall health?

One way to reconcile this broad interpretation of gut health is to consider that “gut health” has become a simple way to explain, interpret, and understand how diets intersect with overall physical and mental well-being. Our daily lives are structured around mealtimes and the foods we eat don’t just provide nutrients, but also social interactions, and can be affected by our socioeconomic status among many other factors. We connect our gut with sensations felt when hungry, full, and after drinking an alcoholic or caffeinated beverage. The gut also connects to diet-based risks for the development of non-communicable diseases over our lifetimes. The quote “all diseases begin in the gut” attributed to Hippocrates still rings true after all the medical advancements over the past 2400 years.

So, since the term “gut health” has such a broad interpretation, we should be qualifying any statement that a biotic or fermented food supports “gut health” with an explanation for the specific feature(s) of gut health that are being improved with biotic use. Perhaps in the future, good gut health, and even good health generally, can be defined. Until then, we only appreciate how we are starting to get closer to understanding the true interconnectedness of the diet-gut-microbiome axis with our overall health and well-being.

 

 

Episode 24: Reflections on the probiotic field and ISAPP’s role

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

Reflections on the probiotic field and ISAPP’s role, with Dr. Mary Ellen Sanders PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP podcast hosts talk about how the probiotic field has evolved over the past 20 years with Dr. Mary Ellen Sanders PhD, ISAPP’s outgoing executive director. She describes how ISAPP is a unique organization advancing the science in the field, highlights what she has enjoyed about being a part of the ISAPP community, and looks ahead to the future of the field.

Key topics from this episode:

  • Sanders describes her career path and how it led to her role with ISAPP. 
  • Both ISAPP and Sanders’ role have changed over time, but she always appreciated two things: great scientific discussions, and interacting with an excellent board of directors.
  • ISAPP has always been dedicated to following the science, highlighting where the evidence is but also the shortcomings of the evidence.
  • The development of microbiome science changed the field of probiotics but it remains important to focus on what probiotics can do for health, rather than what they can do for the microbiome.
  • Mechanisms are important to elucidate, but the most important thing is whether a product impacts health.
  • Sanders says regulations are needed and in the future she hopes regulators will reach out to the expert scientists more frequently and be clear about the standards they expect for a claim.
  • ISAPP meetings are unique–both scientifically enlightening and a lot of fun. Longtime ISAPP board member Gregor Reid had the initial idea for the successful ‘discussion groups’ held every year. 
  • In the future, Sanders thinks probiotics will be used more precisely, like medicines. But also the concept of live dietary microbes may become more popular, with quantities of safe microorganisms being consumed for health benefits.

Episode links:

About Dr. Mary Ellen Sanders PhD:

Mary Ellen Sanders, PhD has served in several roles within ISAPP. She was the founding president, executive science officer and executive director and has retired from ISAPP as of June 30, 2023. She is also a consultant in the area of probiotic microbiology. She works internationally with food and supplement companies to develop new probiotic products and offers perspective on paths to scientific substantiation of probiotic product label claims. She is the current chair of the United States Pharmacopeia’s Probiotics Expert Panel, was a member of the working group convened by the FAO/WHO that developed guidelines for probiotics and serves on the World Gastroenterology Organisation Guidelines Committee preparing practice guidelines for the use of probiotics and prebiotics for gastroenterologists.

Episode 23: Studying microbial ecosystems and how they support health

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

Studying microbial ecosystems and how they support health, with Prof. Emma Allen-Vercoe PhD

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP podcast hosts talk about microbial ecosystems with Prof. Emma Allen-Vercoe PhD from the University of Guelph in Canada. Prof. Allen-Vercoe describes how her lab brings together information from microbial sequencing and culturing to learn about the human gut microbiome and how it supports health. She discusses what we know about the industrialized gut microbiome and possible ways to improve health by manipulating it.

Key topics from this episode:

  • What the microbiome is and the suite of tools that are typically used to study it.
  • Allen-Vercoe does both sequencing and culturing in her lab as well as metabolomics, proteomics, and transcriptomics to discover on a molecular level at what the microbes are doing. They have a model system called “Robogut” to study microbial ecosystems.
  • Culturing is still crucial and it’s important for trainees in microbiology to gain experience culturing organisms that are less straightforward to grow. The late Sydney Finegold inspired others to try culturing more challenging microorganisms.
  • The challenge of culturing is matching the techniques in the lab to what happens in nature when it grows. Her lab builds metagenome-associated genomes to be able to predict the particular substrates that a certain microbe needs to grow.
  • The “missing microbes” hypothesis is that the human microbiome has been depleted over a few generations in people from industrialized societies, and this correlates with an increase in chronic diseases.
  • The Yanomami people from South America have very diverse gut microbiomes and they share certain species with other non-industrialized societies very distant from them around the world, which are not found in industrialized populations. People in industrialized societies are never exposed to these microbes, but even if they were, the microbes might not stick around because the substrates needed to sustain them  (e.g. through the diet) are absent. 
  • The industrialized microbiome is not necessarily ‘bad’ but we do have to find out more about whether the lack of certain microbes has health effects. This is possible through the Robogut system, which can perturb microbial ecosystems and look at their behavior without affecting people’s health.
  • Fecal transplants have limitations, so they’ve started to work on therapeutic ecosystems. These are “clean” or defined ecosystems that can be administered therapeutically.

Episode links:

About Prof. Emma Allen-Vercoe PhD:

Emma obtained her BSc (Hons) in Biochemistry from the University of London, and her PhD in Molecular Microbiology through an industrial partnership with Public Health England. Emma started her faculty career at the University of Calgary in 2005, with a Fellow-to-Faculty transition award through CAG/AstraZeneca and CIHR, to study the normal microbes of the human gut. In particular, she was among the few that focused on trying to culture these ‘unculturable’ microbes in order to better understand their biology. To do this, she developed a model gut system to emulate the conditions of the human gut and allow communities of microbes to grow together, as they do naturally. Emma moved her lab to the University of Guelph in late 2007, and has been a recipient of several Canadian Foundation for Innovation Awards that has allowed her to develop her specialist anaerobic fermentation laboratory further. This has been recently boosted by the award of a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Human Gut Microbiome Function and Host Interactions. In 2013, Emma co-founded NuBiyota, a research spin-off company that aims to create therapeutic ecosystems as biologic drugs, on a commercial scale. The research enterprise for this company is also based in Guelph.

Can we use fermented foods to modulate the human immune system?

/in ISAPP Science Blog, Consumer Blog /by KC

By Dr. Paul Gill PhD, Monash University

Fermented foods have grown in popularity in recent years, marketed for their purported health effects, including on the gut microbiome and immune system. Many of us have had a family member or friend recommend to us kombucha or sauerkraut based on a claim of curing their ailments. However, a reliable recommendation goes beyond anecdotal evidence and the science of how fermented foods confer any health benefits is often poorly understood. We often associate health effects of fermented foods with bacteria such as lactobacilli or Bifidobacterium, but what is lesser known is the role of microbial metabolites. These have sparked recent interest, particularly amongst researchers.

Many fermented foods naturally contain a mixture of live microorganisms and metabolites, such as phenolic compounds and short-chain fatty acids (SCFA). All of these components have the potential to impact host immunity, through two main mechanisms. Firstly, by directly interacting with local gut immune cells that have receptors for bacterial components such as lipopolysaccharide or peptidoglycan. Secondly, by modulating gut microbiota composition or function that will lead to indirect changes to host immunity. Together, these mechanisms are important for regulation of gut barrier integrity and immune homeostasis. Furthermore, bacterial metabolites such as SCFA are also absorbed by the portal vein and reach peripheral circulation, suggesting that they may also play a role in regulating systemic immune responses.

Although many of these findings are based upon observations from in vitro studies or pre-clinical models, several pilot studies in humans have also reported similar effects. A recent trial in a small cohort of healthy people found that consumption of an average of six servings of fermented foods per day for 10 weeks was associated with reduced serum inflammatory markers. Furthermore, consumption of a diet that included three servings of apple cider vinegar each day for three weeks, increased levels of plasma short-chain fatty acids and reduced subsets of circulating lymphocytes in a group of 20 healthy people. Taken together, these studies highlight the potential anti-inflammatory effects of fermented foods and postbiotics.

It remains a challenge to attribute consumption of fermented foods to alterations in host immunity, particularly due to the complex nature of these foods. This is particularly the case for traditional fermented food products that are not well characterised. After isolation and identification of individual metabolites within fermented foods, characterisation of how these compounds are absorbed and interact within the body is also necessary to determine how frequently they should be consumed to have meaningful effects on the immune system. Future studies need to be designed of sufficient duration, with a realistic dietary intervention and optimal timing of biological sampling is crucial to validate observations from exploratory trials. Finally, studies in patients with immune deficiencies will be needed to assess safety and potential therapeutic benefit. Alternatively, studies in healthy people during an immune challenge, such as during vaccination, are another desirable approach to investigate immune and therapeutic effects of fermented food consumption.

The scientific and medical communities, alongside the food industry, are continuing to improve our understanding of how fermented foods may benefit our health and immune system, including which components are responsible for any health benefits. Future studies are still needed to confirm if these may be of therapeutic benefit, and who may benefit the most from consuming these products. As our knowledge evolves, it is important that we continue to follow expert groups such as ISAPP to keep well informed and correctly communicate this information to patients and the public.

Biotics in animal and human nutrition

Episode 22: Biotics in animal and human nutrition

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

Biotics in animal and human nutrition

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

Biotics in animal and human nutrition, with Prof. Kelly Swanson

Episode summary:

In this episode, the ISAPP podcast hosts join guest Prof. Kelly Swanson PhD from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to discuss the role of biotics in animal and human nutrition. They review the criteria for prebiotics and synbiotics, then discuss how we gain knowledge about nutrition and the role of biotics in animals compared to humans.

Key topics from this episode:

  • A good argument can be made that biotics are essential for our diet; they are beneficial even if efficacy is sometimes difficult to prove.
  • Nutrients have an impact on the host’s health and simultaneously on the host-associated microbes.
  • Health benefits are essential to the FDA definition of fiber.
  • Antibiotics’ effect on the microbiota: short-term effects may be minor, but we still don’t know the long-term effects.
  • The synbiotics definition, criteria for products to meet this definition, and the health outcomes from using these biotic substances.
  • The difference between complementary and synergistic synbiotics.
  • When studying biotics in companion animals (cats and dogs), can results from one host be extrapolated to another host? Final studies should be in the target host.
  • Biotics are important in veterinary medicine and a popular topic of study.
  • Predictions about the future of nutrition science as informed by the microbiome.

Episode links:

Additional resources:

About Prof. Kelly Swanson:

Kelly Swanson is the Kraft Heinz Company Endowed Professor in Human Nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His laboratory studies the effects of nutritional interventions, identifying how diet impacts host physiology and gut microbiota. His lab’s primary emphasis is on gastrointestinal health and obesity in dogs, cats, and humans. Much of his work has focused on dietary fibers and ‘biotics’. Kelly has trained over 40 graduate students and postdocs, published over 235 peer-reviewed manuscripts, and given over 150 invited lectures at scientific conferences. He is an active instructor, teaching 3-4 nutrition courses annually, and has been named to the university’s ‘List of Teachers Ranked as Excellent by Their Students’ 30 times. He serves on advisory boards for many companies in the human and pet food industries and non-profit organizations, including the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences and International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics.

New global guidelines for probiotics and prebiotics for gut health and disease

/in ISAPP Science Blog /by KC

By Mary Ellen Sanders, PhD, Executive Science Officer, ISAPP

The use of probiotics and prebiotics in the practice of gastroenterology must be guided by evidence – and with new evidence continually emerging, clinicians can benefit from efforts to summarize this evidence and determine how it applies in clinical practice.

In February 2023, the World Gastroenterology Organisation provided an updated resource in this area, titled “WGO Practice Guideline. Probiotics and Prebiotics”. This project was led by Prof. Francisco Guarner MD PhD, a clinical gastroenterologist and clinical researcher in probiotics and prebiotics, and brought together experts in gastroenterology, pediatrics, family medicine, probiotics, and prebiotics. Prof. Hania Szajewska MD PhD, a clinical pediatrician and clinical researcher in probiotics from the Medical University of Warsaw, was integral to assessing evidence for pediatric populations for the guidelines. Mary Ellen Sanders PhD co-chaired the project.

For 2023 update, 800 bibliographical entries of papers published in the 2017-2021 period were scrutinized. The review team adopted the guidelines for evaluation of probiotics established by FAO/WHO experts in 2002, where at least one double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled human trial with appropriate sample size and primary outcome is required to determine if the tested product is efficacious, and qualifies as a probiotic.

ISAPP was well-represented among the experts involved on the project, as four current board members contributed. In addition to Sanders and Szajewska, Prof. Dan Merenstein MD (current ISAPP president) and Prof. Seppo Salminen PhD (current past president) populated the team.

The Guideline is intended to provide specific information on interventions that may have benefit for indicated conditions. Recommendations included probiotics or prebiotics found in at least one randomized, controlled trial showing benefit. Trials that did not show benefit were not included. The Guideline serves an important role in informing gastroenterologists around the world, especially in regions where product availability might be limited. Especially useful are Tables 8 and 9, which summarize evidence for adult and pediatric uses, respectively.

Guarner states, “We hope our WGO guideline will assist doctors, pharmacists, dietitians and other healthcare professionals all around the world to integrate probiotics and prebiotics in an evidence-based manner into their daily work of patient care.”

The Guideline provides text that introduces current understanding of probiotics and prebiotics and then comprehensively evaluates the evidence for gastrointestinal conditions. Evidence is graded from 1-3, with Level 1 referring to evidence supported by systematic review of randomized trials, Level 2 supported by randomized trials with consistent effect, without systematic review, and Level 3, supported by a single randomized controlled trial, as per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

The 2017 iteration of these guidelines was available in six languages (English, French, Portuguese, Mandarin, Russian and Spanish). This guideline is the most accessed guideline title on the WGO website,  accounting for nearly one-quarter of all visits to the site. The 2023 version is only available in English so far, but translations are underway.

Clinical conditions for which some evidence was found include:

  • Diarrheal conditions: acute, antibiotic-associated, difficile-associated, radiotherapy-associated, enteral nutrition-associated, nosocomial,
  • Diverticular disease
  • Functional abdominal pain
  • Functional constipation
  • Insulin resistance
  • Health-related quality of life
  • Helicobacter pylori infection
  • Hepatic encephalopathy
  • Infantile colic
  • Inflammatory bowel disease
  • Irritable bowel syndrome
  • Lactose maldigestion
  • Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
  • Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
  • Necrotizing enterocolitis

 

About WGO:
World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO) is a federation of over 100 Member Societies and four Regional Associations of gastroenterology representing over 60,000 individual members worldwide.  The WGO Guidelines Library contains practice guidelines written from a viewpoint of global applicability. The Guidelines go through a rigorous process of authoring, editing, and peer review and are as evidence based as possible.

Genetically modified microorganisms for health

Episode 21: Genetically modified microorganisms for health

/in Podcast, Season Two /by Laura

Genetically modified microorganisms for health

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The Science, Microbes & Health Podcast 

This podcast covers emerging topics and challenges in the science of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, postbiotics and fermented foods. This is the podcast of The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to advancing the science of these fields.

Genetically modified microorganisms for health, with Dr. Carlos Gómez-Gallego

Episode summary:

In this episode, ISAPP podcast host Dan Tancredi joins guest Carlos Gómez-Gallego PhD, from University of Eastern Finland, to discuss genetically modified microorganisms. They go over what genetically modified microorganisms are, their potential benefits over non-modified microorganisms, and how they might improve human health–in particular, diseases of the metabolic and immune systems.

 

Key topics from this episode:

  • Genetically modified microorganisms are those that have been modified using genetic engineering, giving them abilities they do not normally have. Functions can be either conferred or deleted. Different genetic engineering tools can be used – e.g. to make them produce therapeutic compounds, or make them increase degradation of toxins or harmful compounds.
  • One advantage over non-modified microorganisms is the potential to have continuous delivery of a therapeutic compound, and the potential to deliver it to a localized area in order to avoid unwanted interactions.
  • Genetically modified microorganisms have promise in metabolic and immune-linked disorders such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
  • In NAFLD, genetically modified E. coli Nissle can secrete hormones that are under-regulated or under-expressed. His group modified bacteria by introducing a plasmid that allowed it to produce aldafermin, an analog of the human hormone fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19).
  • With genetically engineered microorganisms, we must consider the benefits but also the risks. However, if it’s a therapeutic for a disease with few or no alternatives, there’s a strong case for developing them.
  • To increase efficacy and safety of these microorganisms, it’s possible to introduce sensors that produce the therapeutic in response to different stimuli. Also, it’s important to modify the bacteria so their use is controlled and they cannot spread. They can also be modified to avoid transmission of genes.
  • Are there market-approved genetically modified microorganisms? No approved ones yet, but some are in Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials.

Episode links:

About Dr. Carlos Gómez-Gallego:

I am a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition (University of Eastern Finland). I have completed two university degrees, one in Biology and another in Food Science and Technology, and an MSc in Nutrition and Health. I subsequently completed a Ph.D. from the University of Murcia, where I investigated the effect of infant formula processing on the content of polyamines and bioactive peptides, and their impact on intestinal microbiota and immune system development during lactation.

My research and interests are primarily focused on advancing the understanding of the impact of diet, food, and bioactive compounds on human microbiota and their association with human health. As part of the BestTreat project (https://besttreat.eu/index.html), I have co-supervised two PhD students (Johnson Lok and Valeria Ianone) who evaluated the potential use of engineered E. coli Nissle 1917 producing human hormones for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in a mouse model. The first publication has already been submitted, and the second is currently in process.

More info about my publications:
Research Gate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos-Gomez-Gallego
UEF connect https://uefconnect.uef.fi/en/person/carlos.gomez-gallego/#information

Supercharging innovation: New session at ISAPP 2023 annual meeting brings industry and student members together to scientific innovation workshop in the field of biotics

/in News /by KC

Innovation in the biotics field is an important way to address some of our most important challenges in health, and ISAPP is the organization on the forefront of this innovation. This year ISAPP members are excited to debut a new workshop focused on innovation, June 26th at the 2023 ISAPP annual meeting in Denver. For this workshop, the Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) and the Students and Fellows Association (SFA) have joined forces and initiated a new way to share knowledge and promote networking opportunities.

How did the idea of the IAC-SFA innovation workshops come about?

The Innovation Workshops evolved from interest in how SFA and IAC might gain scientific insights from each other. What they have in common is a dedication to cutting-edge science. From this emerged the idea that these groups could convene several concurrent workshop sessions during the pre-meeting program focusing on innovation in the biotic field.

What will be discussed at the workshops?

The concurrent workshops will focus on four topics:

  • Innovation in prebiotics: What’s next? Chaired by Marla Cunningham
  • Latest advances in microbiome models and biotic screening techniques. Chaired by Brendan Daisley
  • Looking to the future for food and biotics. Chaired by Daragh Hill
  • Probiotic application beyond the gut: What have we learned and what’s next? Chaired by Mariya Petrova

Guided by IAC and SFA representatives, the attendees at each workshop will discuss topics of interest and attempt to answer relevant questions in the biotics field. For example:

  • What are the latest developments in the biotic field regarding research, discoveries, and techniques?
  • What problems are we currently facing, and how will we solve them?
  • What are the future opportunities, and how can we progress?

How will this advance innovation in the field?

The Innovation Workshops will provide a platform where IAC representatives and SFA members can benefit from the exchange ideas gained from unique viewpoints expressed. Industry members can hear firsthand about innovative research that students and fellows perform in their labs, while students can gain a deeper understanding of some of the considerations for commercialization and opportunities and barriers in the marketplace. By joining forces, we believe these workshops will form a bridge between industry and young generation scientists and provide valuable insights into to the latest biotic questions.

Through initiatives such as these, ISAPP drives scientific innovation in biotics for the benefit of the entire field.