| Literature DB >> 31107885 |
Francesco Celandroni1, Alessandra Vecchione1, Alice Cara1, Diletta Mazzantini1, Antonella Lupetti1, Emilia Ghelardi1,2.
Abstract
Spores of several Bacillus species have long history of consumption and safe use as probiotics and a variety of formulations containing these organisms are available in the global market. Considering the difficulties in the identification of Bacillus species and the poor microbiological quality of many probiotic formulations, we used three up-to-date methodological approaches for analyzing the content of ten formulations marketed in Italy and labeled to contain Bacillus spores. We compared the performance of biochemical tests based on the BCL Vitek2 card and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry, using 16S rDNA sequencing as the reference technique. The BCL card performed well in identifying all Bacillus probiotic strains as well as the Bruker's MALDI Biotyper. Nevertheless, the MALDI score values were sometimes lower than those indicated by the manufacturer for correct species identification. Contaminant bacteria (Lysinibacillus fusiformis, Acinetobacter baumannii, Bacillus cereus, Brevibacillus choshinensis, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus badius) were detected in some formulations. Characterization of the B. cereus contaminant showed the potential pathogenicity of this strain. Microbial enumeration performed by the plate count method revealed that the number of viable cells contained in many of the analyzed products differed from the labeled amount. Overall, our data show that only two of the ten analyzed formulations qualitatively and quantitatively respect what is on the label. Since probiotic properties are most often strain specific, molecular typing of isolates of the two most common Bacillus species, B. clausii and B. coagulans, was also performed. In conclusion, the majority of the analyzed products do not comply with quality requirements, most likely leading to reduced/absent efficacy of the preparation and representing a potential infective risk for consumers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31107885 PMCID: PMC6527297 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Probiotic products used in this study.
| Formulation n. | Product | Brand | Batch |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Biogermin vials | Union Health S.r.l. | 40239 |
| 2 | Biolactine family bottles | Sella S.r.l. | L096264 |
| 3 | Enterofermenti family vials | SB Pharma C. | L70316 |
| 4 | Enterogermina 2 mld vials | Sanofi S.p.A. | 1739 |
| 5 | Enterolife vials | Paladin Pharma S.p.A. | L100516 |
| 6 | Ferzym Plus capsules | Specchiasol S.r.l. | 02427 |
| 7 | Lactò Più bottles | Recordati OTC S.p.A. | 0134 |
| 8 | Nucleogermina 10 bottles | Pharmaelle S.r.l. | 020415 |
| 9 | Progermila bottles | Chemist’s Research S.r.l. | 171214 |
| 10 | Progermila bambini bottles | Chemist’s Research S.r.l. | 140316 |
Brand and batch of the analyzed formulations.
Identification of the spore-forming bacteria contained in each probiotic formulation.
| Formulation | Labeled organisms | N. of identified species | Biochemical identification BCL( | MALDI-TOF MS identification( | 16S rDNA sequencing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | 1 | ||||
| 4 | 1 | ||||
| 5 | 1 | ||||
| 6 | 2 | ||||
| 7 | 1 | ||||
| 8 | 1 | ||||
| 9 | 2 | ||||
| 10 | 3 |
Labeled organisms and identification by biochemical tests, MALDI-TOF MS, and 16S rDNA sequencing of each bacterial isolate contained in the analyzed formulations.
a Probability of correct identification.
b Identification scores of the two replicates.
c Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Lactobacillus helveticus.
d Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis.
Enumeration of the spore formers contained in a unit dose of each probiotic formulation.
| 1 | 1 vial | 2 × 109 | 1.4 ± 1.1 × 109 | 5.9 ± 5.0 × 109 |
| 2 | 1 bottle | 4.55 × 109 | 5.6 ± 0.5 × 104 | 5.5 ± 1.5 × 104 |
| 3 | 1vial | 4 × 109 | 2.8 ± 2.2 × 107 | 1.1 ± 0.5 × 107 |
| 4 | 1 vial | 2 × 109 | 1.2 ± 0.9 × 109 | 1.7 ± 0.7 × 109 |
| 5 | 1 vial | 2 × 109 | 3.7 ± 2.3 × 106 | 3.4 ± 2.1 × 106 |
| 6 | 1 capsule | 5 × 109 | 4.8 ± 3.2 × 104 | 2.0 ± 1.7 × 105 |
| 7 | 1 bottle | 3 × 109 | 1.5 ± 1.5 × 108 | 1.1 ± 5.8 × 107 |
| 8 | 1 bottle | 1 × 1010 | 4.3 ± 2.9 × 1011 | 1.6 ± 1.4 × 1012 |
| 9 | 1 bottle | 1 × 1010 | 7.1 ± 1.5 × 1012 | 9.0 ± 0.5 × 1012 |
| 10 | 1 bottle | 5 × 109 | 4.2 ± 3.1 × 1012 | 1.9 ± 1.1 × 1012 |
| 2 | 1 bottle | 1.2 ± 0.8 × 104 | 4.3 ± 0.8 × 104 | |
| 6 | 1 capsule | 1.5 ± 1.3 × 104 | 2.0 ± 1.7 × 105 | |
| 9 | 1 bottle | 6.4 ± 0.9 × 1012 | 6.5 ± 0.4 × 1012 | |
| 10 | 1 bottle | 1.8 ± 1.1 × 1012 | 3.4 ± 1.6 × 1012 |
Enumeration of the spore formers on TSH medium. For products containing more than one isolate, separate counts are reported.
Fig 1RAPD-PCR amplification obtained with different primers from B. clausii strains.
Used primer: HLWL85, RPO2, Pro-Up, M13, OPE02, OPE03, OPD02, OPD03. 1: strain OC from formulation 4; 2: strain from formulation 10; 3: strain from formulation 9; 4: strain from formulation 5; 5: strain from formulation 3; 6: strain from formulation 1; 7: ATCC 10317; 8: DSM 8716; 9: ATCC 21536; 10: ATCC 21537.
Fig 2RAPD-PCR amplification obtained with different primers from B. coagulans strains.
Used primer: RPO2, M13, Pro-Up, OPE02, OPE03, OPD02, OPD03. 1: strain from formulation 2; 2: strain from formulation 6; 3: strain from formulation 7; 4: FLtas1; 5: FP22.