Safety and Effect of a Low- and High-Dose Multi-Strain Probiotic Supplement on Microbiota in a General Adult Population: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have focused on dose-response analyses of multi-strain probiotics in the general adult population. This study aimed at comparing how a low- and high-dose of a multi-strain probiotic supplement (containing Lactobacillus helveticus R0052, Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011, Lactobacillus casei R0215, Pediococcus acidilactici R1001, Bifidobacterium breve R0070, Bifidobacterium longum ssp. longum BB536, Lactobacillus plantarum R1012, Lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis R1058) affected microbiota composition, transit persistence and safety in adults. After a 7-d baseline, participants were randomized to receive capsules containing 5 or 25 billion CFU, or placebo daily for 28 days, followed by a 7-d washout. Digestive health and general wellness were assessed. Fecal microbiota composition was analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and strain persistence, by qPCR. Participants’ gastrointestinal and general wellbeing were unaffected. No adverse events were associated with either dose. Supplemented strains contributed to the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genera detected in stool, with 0.40 ± 0.11% and 0.51 ± 0.26%, respectively, in the high-dose group. Strain-specific qPCR assays revealed variable levels of post-intervention persistence between strains. Sequencing and composition analyses using the 16S V4 region revealed a decrease in Holdemania and increase in Bacteroidales. The formulation was well tolerated in this sample of the general adult population, even at the higher dose. The strains appear to have influenced microbiota composition minimally, as expected in the absence of dysbiosis, and consistently with the dose administered. Overall, the results provide a rationale to study the effects this formulation on microbiota composition in individuals exhibiting dysbiosis associated with metabolic disorders or obesity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".