Role of Probiotics Against Mycotoxins and Their Deleterious Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probiotics are live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host. They commonly belong to the genera <em>Bifidobacterium</em> and <em>Lactobacillus</em>. Fermented milks haven been used as the main vehicle, so far, for their delivery to consumers. Mycotoxins are secondary toxic fungal products with a long history of responsibility for foodborne disease outbreaks. Human and animals are continuously exposed to variable levels of these contaminants (aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, fumonisins, deoxynivalenol, patulin, zearalenone, among others) that occur naturally in the diet. The long term exposure might cause tissue and genetic damage. Certain probiotic strains can bind and remove mycotoxins from liquid media. Eukaryotic cell cultures showed that the complex probiotic-mycotoxin is less adhesive to enterocytes than the probiotic alone, then favouring maybe the elimination of this complex from the gut through feces. Probiotics were also shown capable of restoring some functions of the epithelial cells after the damage produced by mycotoxin exposure. Animal trials revealed that genetic damage and tissue oxidation might be also partially avoided by the oral administration of probiotics. Finally, human clinical trials conducted in people naturally exposed to mycotoxins in food that received probiotics, showed reduced levels of mycotoxin-DNA adducts in urine and in the content of mycotoxins in feces. However, it remains to know the fate of the ingested mycotoxins that were not found in feces. <em>In vitro</em> to <em>in vivo</em> evidence is gathering in order to determine the role of probiotics on the prevention or partial remediation of the damage induced by mycotoxins.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".