Abstract
Synbiotics are preparations in which prebiotics are added to probiotics to achieve superior performance and benefits on the host. A new route of their formation is to induce the prebiotic biosynthesis within the probiotic for synbiotic self-production or autologous synbiotics. The aim of this review paper is first to overview the basic concept and (updated) definitions of synergistic synbiotics, and then to focus particularly on the prebiotic properties of probiotic wall components while describing the environmental factors/stresses that stimulate autologous synbiotics, that is, the biosynthesis of prebiotic-forming microcapsule by probiotic bacteria, and finally to present some of their applications to human and animal health.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Synbiotics are “a mixture comprising live microorganisms and substrate(s) selectively utilized by host microorganisms that confers a health benefit on the host.” Two types of synbiotics have to be distinguished: (a) complementary synbiotics, which consist of a probiotic combining with an independently active prebiotic, and (b) synergistic synbiotics, in which the substrate is designed to be used selectively by the co-administered microorganism [1]. The synergistic effect of synbiotics is demonstrated by inhibiting the growth of pathogenic bacteria [2] and promoting the growth of beneficial organisms [3]. The term “probiotic” is designated for bacteria as well as some yeasts that can live until reaching the gut, and have beneficial effects on the host health. Among the microorganisms considered probiotics, lactic acid bacteria (LABs) are the most common probiotics known to have beneficial effects on the gastrointestinal tract [4]. Prebiotics are a group of non-digested substrates selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit [5]. Initially, it mainly consists of carbohydrate-based substances such as of fructans, galactans, beta-glucans, and exopolysaccharides (EPSs), leading to the formation and regulation of the host gut microbiota [6, 7]. However, substances such as polyphenols and polyunsaturated fatty acids converted to respective conjugated fatty acids may be considered prebiotics when there is an adequate evidence of their health benefits for the target host, according to the updated definition.
To improve host health through the beneficial activity of bacteria, it must be ensured that probiotic cell survival in any type of formulation should achieve a certain density depending on the expected dose–response effects for each strain [8, 9]. However, for ease of use, the probiotic ingredients are usually in a dried form. During the production, storage, and powder digestion, the bacteria may experience a variety of stresses, which can affect their survival and beneficial effects [10]. Importantly, ensuring the survival of probiotics needs to be considered when they were transported through the harsh acidic environment of the stomach to reach the target site, hence allowing adequate colonization and proliferation [11]. Protecting probiotics into macromolecular microcapsules successfully help them to survive from the harsh [12] and changing conditions of the gastrointestinal tract [13, 14]. The microencapsulation technique also stabilizes probiotics during storage at various temperatures and can significantly extend the cell shelf life [15,16,17].
It has been proven that probiotic strains such as Lactobacilli, propionibacteria, and bifidobacteria experience membrane injury under various stresses [18], such cell membrane acting as a barrier against adverse environmental conditions. In response to these challenges, bacteria are able to adopt various mechanisms. These include internal changes expressed by overexpression of molecular chaperones as well as the synthesis of stress-resistant proteins, and extrinsic changes through enhancing the synthesis of cell wall components such as membrane lipids, peptidoglycans (PGs), S-layer proteins, and EPSs [10]. Numerous studies have indicated that probiotic bacteria enhance the synthesis of EPSs, forming a protective envelope around the cells, so-called capsules, under environmental challenges [19, 20].
The current review outlines, on one hand, the basic concept of synbiotics and their various applications, and on the other hand, the prebiotic properties of probiotic wall components. A particular attention will be focused on the potential use of environmental stresses stimulating autologous synbiotics, that is, the biosynthesis of prebiotic-forming microcapsule by probiotic bacteria.
Synbiotic Composition and Definitions
Basically, synbiotics are composed by probiotics and prebiotics in the same preparation [2]. Probiotics are live microorganisms including bacteria and yeast that have been shown to have beneficial effects on the host health [21, 22] and gastrointestinal function [22], and may contain one or more selected strains. Bacillus, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, and Streptococcus as well as some fungi and yeast strains such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Kluyveromyces are various examples of microbial genera recognized as probiotics [22]. Prebiotics are a group of nutrients capable of stimulating the growth of probiotic bacteria [23]. Various compounds which have been functionally identified as prebiotics are fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS), galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS), trans-galacto-oligosaccharides, short-chain fatty acids, peptidoglycans [23], and EPSs [24]. Previously, synbiotics were simply a combination of probiotics and prebiotics [3, 25] and required that each independently provides health benefits, which are dependent on the dose of each component. [5]. However, a more general definition has been given by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), which defines synbiotics as “a mixture comprising live microorganisms and substrate(s) selectively utilized by host microorganisms that confers a health benefit on the host.” According to this formula, the microbial composition is not necessarily an independent probiotic, and the non-digestible substrate is not necessarily an independent prebiotic, but if they confer a health benefit, the mixture can be called a synergistic synbiotic [26].
Synbiotic formulation simply includes two main components of a living microorganism and a certain substrate (Fig. 1). The combination of these ingredients into a synbiotic will provide better health benefits than the individual ingredients. The next section treats the mechanism of action of such a combination.
Synergistic Synbiotics
The synergistic effect of probiotics and prebiotics in synbiotics confers host health benefits. For complementary synbiotics, the probiotic and prebiotic ingredients can act independently and must meet minimum dosage criteria to achieve one or more health benefits [26]. However, both prebiotics and probiotics function optimally when they are combined. These synergistic benefits enhance the therapeutic and nutritional value of products containing these components [27, 28]. Therefore, prebiotics should be comprehensively characterized to evaluate not only their fermentability, but also their influences on probiotic properties likes adherence, because enhanced adhesion can prolong the residence time of bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract [29]. In meanwhile, probiotics confer positive effects on health by impacting the resident microbiota, intestinal epithelium cells, and the host immune system [30]. In addition, probiotics can use prebiotics as a source of nutrients, helping them stay longer in the gut [31]. This probiotic higher viability facilitates the delivery of the expected health benefits [27, 32]. Thus, the combination of both probiotic and prebiotic ingredients in a product will ensure superior efficacy compared to using them independently [33].
For synergistic synbiotics, substrates are designed for selective use by co-administered microorganisms, whereas live microorganisms are selected based on their ability to provide health benefits and to support the growth as well as activity of selected microorganisms [27]. Although the substrate may also enrich other beneficial members of the gastrointestinal microbiota, its primary target is the ingested microorganisms [27]. However, designing and demonstrating the efficacy of a synergistic synbiotic is an experimental challenge. Therefore, many of the commercial synbiotics used in clinical trials and nearly all synbiotics used in commercially available clinical trials are mostly in complementary synbiotics [34]. The mechanism of action of synbiotics can be described in Fig. 2.
When combining as a synbiotic, prebiotics play a role in improving the survival of probiotics [35]. It is not surprising that the components involved in the construction of the cell wall also have a similar function, contributing to the enhancement of the probiotic properties of beneficial bacteria. In addition, some ingredients such as EPSs have been proven to exhibit prebiotic activities [24].
Probiotic Bacterial Cell Wall Containing Prebiotic Components
LAB is the most common group of probiotic bacteria [4]. The cell wall of LAB is composed of a thick PG sacculus (multi-layered) that surrounds the cytoplasmic membrane and is embedded with teichoic acids, lipoteichoic acids, proteins, and polysaccharides [36] (Fig. 3). Each cell surface macromolecule impacts the probiotic activity of LAB because it is involved in the interaction between bacteria and the host [37]. The PG layer is an essential component which protects cell integrity and resists lysis [38, 39]. In addition, other cell wall components such as teichoic acids, lipoteichoic acids, S-layer proteins, and polysaccharides are non- or covalently bound to PGs which serve as a permanent framework for these components [38]. The chemical structure of PGs consists of glycan chains interspersed with N-acetylglucosamine and N-acetylmuramic acid linked via β-1.4 linkage. The peptide chain is covalently linked via the N-terminus to the lactyl group of N-acetylmuramic [36]. The negatively charged polymers covalently bonded to PGs were identified as teichoic acids, or directly attached to the cytoplasmic membrane were identified as lipoteichoic acids (LTAs) [36].
The basic structure of teichoic acids (TAs) consists of repeating units of polyglycerol phosphate or polyribitol phosphate depending on various conditions such as species, stage or growth rate, pH of the medium, carbon source, and the presence of phosphate that the structure and abundance of this polymer can be different [40, 41]. Different roles are assigned to TAs, at least concerning their anionic properties or their distribution in the bacterial cell wall. TAs provide a reservoir of ions close to the cell wall that may be necessary for enzymes to function properly. Due to their anionic properties, TAs can bind both cations, such as Mg2+ and protons, thereby creating a pH gradient across the cell wall. TAs and their substitutes are crucial for the control of autolysis in certain species of Gram-positive bacteria [41]. LTAs were originally considered autolysin inhibitors. By determining the number of binding sites for autolysin cations, their D-alanylation level has also been proposed as a means of regulating autolysation [41]. LTAs appear to play a prominent role in host-Lactobacilli interactions [42]. LTAs have been reported to be essential for the adhesion of Lactobacillus johnsonii La1 to human intestinal epithelial cells (Caco-2), possibly through hydrophobic interactions [43].
Another important component of the LAB cell wall is surface proteins, which can be large or small, and consist of repeat domains or discrete domains [39]. One of the important surface proteins called the S-layer is tightly bound to PGs [40]. The surface proteins of probiotic or commensal bacteria are thought to facilitate the colonization and persistence of mucosa in the gastrointestinal tract. It has been suggested that the S-layer proteins may be involved in the adhesion properties of LAB to the intestinal epithelium and other extracellular complex components [44, 45].
Finally, the cell wall surface of probiotics contains polysaccharides [39]. These polysaccharides can covalently bind to PGs called capsule polysaccharides or secrete directly into the external environment called exopolysaccharides; they are sometimes collectively named EPSs [39]. Several roles have been assigned to EPSs in LAB such as in bacterial-host interactions. EPSs are required for normal cell morphology and play a role in cell division [46]. In addition, EPSs are also involved in a wide range of bacterial properties and functions, including adhesion to abiotic surfaces and biofilm formation [36]. EPSs have also been shown to protect Lactococcus lactis against macrophage phagocytosis [46]. A Lacticaseibacillus casei Shirota mutant synthesizing lower levels of high-molecular-weight EPSs produced higher levels of cytokines IL6, IL10, and IL12 after being co-incubated with mouse macrophages in vitro. These results highlight the immunosuppressive function of EPSs [47]. The monosaccharide composition in EPSs influences their protective efficacy. The galactose-rich EPSs of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG protect against host innate defense molecules, such as the antimicrobial peptide LL-37 [48].
Environmental Stress Factors Enhancing the Prebiotic Self-Producing Probiotics
In response to extreme environmental conditions, probiotics can strengthen their cell wall by enhancing the synthesis of S-layer proteins, peptidoglycans, and EPSs. As a result, the cell wall becomes thicker forming a protective microencapsulation. The following reviews will be more specific about the effects of environmental stresses on cellular mechanisms for improving survival.
The Synthesis of Internal Stress-Resisting Factors
Probiotics LAB can survive at high temperatures from 45 to 80 °C [49]. Grujović et al. reported that Limosilactobacillus fermentum (KGPMF28 and KGPMF2) was capable of growing at 45 °C for 24 h [50]. The viability of LAB at high temperatures is a very important criterion for the selection of LAB species as starter cultures and probiotics. At high temperatures, biomolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids can be degraded and lost their function, leading to the inhibition of metabolism [51]. High temperatures can also increase the fluidity of cell membranes, thereby disrupting cellular activities [52]. To avoid denaturation and degradation, LAB have multiple adaptive mechanisms including increased production of specific proteins [53]. These proteins include heat shock proteins, the chaperone protein DnaK prolyl-tRNA synthetase, chaperonins (GroEL), and cofactors (GroES) that play important roles in promoting the correct folding and subsequent translocation of newly synthesized polypeptides [54]. In addition, under heat stress conditions, LAB increase the synthesis of saturated and straight-chain fatty acids, providing the appropriate amount of fluidity required for membrane functions [55]. The expression of DNA-binding proteins is another way to protect biomolecules like DNA which is through the expression of DNA-binding proteins [56].
The ability of probiotics to maintain viability in cold is vital due to most commercial probiotic strains be supplied as lyophilized powders [57]. The viability of probiotic LAB during freeze-drying and storage before consumption is a determinant of their probiotic properties [58]. LAB cope with the effects of low temperatures by creating antifreeze and cold shock protein that ameliorate the harmful effects associated with cold environments [59]. LAB are known to be capable of synthesizing cold-adapted enzymes to remain active at freezing temperatures and support both transcription and translation [60]. Some LABs also produce anticoagulant proteins which bind to ice crystals to prevent them from penetrating cells [61].
Strengthening acid tolerance is crucial to promoting LAB survival and therefore ensures the quality and functionality of probiotics products. Acidity is one of the important barriers that LAB need to deal with to survive the passage from the stomach to the intestines. Probiotic LAB can experience extreme acid stress conditions in the stomach due to the presence of hydrochloric acid. However, some LAB are equipped with mechanisms that allow them to survive at low pH conditions [62]. Consequently, to qualify as a probiotic, LAB must have the ability to survive under the pH conditions of the gastrointestinal tract [63]. It is fortunate that LAB are equipped with molecules to protect against cell damage and improve tolerance to the harmful external environment [64, 65]. One such protective molecule secreted by LAB during fermentation is a proton-translocating ATPase [66], which stabilizes the pH inside the cell in response to a low external pH [67].
Under alkaline conditions, LABs regulate their intracellular pH by alkalizing the cytoplasm [68]. Zhang et al. proved that K+ and Na+ proton antagonists lower cytoplasmic pH undergrowth in alkaline conditions [69]. K+ ions are required for LAB protection under alkaline pH because the expression of soluble shock proteins is activated by K+ [70].
Probiotic LAB are often subject to osmotic pressure causing dehydration. To tolerate such changes, probiotics have developed systems to protect against osmotic stress. During growth in a highly osmotic medium, LABs regulate their intracellular osmolarity to maintain osmotic balance with the outside. Probiotic bacteria activate specific mechanisms such as K+ or compatible solute uptake/synthesis to prevent cell death in media with high salt concentrations. Probiotic bacteria also produce protective molecules (mainly proteins), such as the operon proteins DnaK and HtrS, protecting cells from salt-induced damage [71].
S-Layer Proteins
Bacteria are surrounded by extracellular polymeric substances such as EPSs and proteins, which allow bacteria to exist with their different physicochemical states of modes of organization [72]. The surface properties of probiotic LABs are related to their ability to adhere to the gastrointestinal epithelium, a condition considered a prerequisite for the exclusion of enteric pathogenic bacteria [73, 74] and the regulation of host immunity [75]. Several species of Lactobacillus including mucosa-associated species such as Lactobacillus crispatus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactobacillus gallinarum as well as species related to milk fermentation such as Lactobacillus kefiranofaciens and Lactobacillus helveticus can form S-layer proteins which participate in the outermost structure of the cell envelope. These S-layer proteins are involved in critical cell functionalities such as maintaining cell shape, controlling the transfer of nutrients and metabolites, promoting cell adhesion, and acting as a protective barrier against adverse environments [76]. In some species of Lactobacillus, S-layer proteins mediate bacterial attachment to the extracellular matrix or the host cells [77]. There is evidence that bacteria can express alternative S-layer protein genes in response to different stresses, for example, the host immune response to pathogens dramatic changes in environmental conditions for non-pathogenic agents [78, 79].
It has been suggested that the surface properties of bacteria depend on the growth conditions and the composition of the culture medium [80]. A recent study showed that the probiotic strain Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 299v in the human intestine specifically regulates its metabolic capacity to acquire carbohydrates, synthesize EPSs, and express surface proteins [81]. Certain stressful conditions can also induce S-layer proteins by L. acidophilus IBB 801, presumably helping to increase the viability of this strain under adverse culture conditions. Proteomic studies have provided information on proteome changes when L. acidophilus IBB 801 is subjected to thermal stress [82]. The role of S-layer proteins in the adaptation of L. acidophilus ATCC 4356 to high salt-induced osmotic stress was also demonstrated. The pre-adaptation to high salt conditions favors the probiotic nature of L. acidophilus ATCC 4356 because the increased number and the release of S-layer proteins may be consistent with its antimicrobial potential [71].
Peptidoglycans
Peptidoglycans play an important role in the survival and growth of probiotics as well as in the regulation of host immune responses [83]. This represents a potential characterization as a prebiotic of PGs. PGs derived from L. rhamnosus MLGA are able to induce the antimicrobial peptide defensin while simultaneously avoiding the harmful risks of inflammatory reactions [84]. Under lethal pH, the MurC and GalE1 proteins involved in peptidoglycan synthesis are upregulated in response to acid stress [85]. In addition, previous transcriptome analysis revealed that inducing peptidoglycan synthesis is a strategy that enhances cell wall H+ blocking in Bifidobacterium [86]. The production of PGs in the cells was significantly higher under low pH conditions. This suggested that the cell wall of the adapted cells has improved integrity and strength [87].
Exopolysaccharides
LAB’s EPSs are important biopolymers, which are widely used in food and pharmaceuticals, and act as prebiotic. Among prebiotics, EPSs were examined for their prebiotic activities [24]. It has also been indicated that the EPSs produced by LAB are able to inhibit the formation of biofilms via certain pathogenic bacteria [88]. Glucan-type EPSs isolated from Levilactobacillus brevis ED25 have potential as a prebiotic which stimulates the growth of Lactobacillus GG [89]. A previous study reported that the EPSs produced by L. plantarum, Weissella cibaria, Weissella confusa, and Pediococcus pentosaceus can be utilized (as carbon source) by Bifidobacterium bifidum DSM 20456 [90]. The metabolic, physiological, and cell surface properties of probiotic bacteria can be altered under exposure to stressful gastrointestinal conditions, thereby affecting the production of colonization factors such as EPSs. As a result, their ability to adhere to the intestinal epithelium is significantly affected [91]. The production of EPSs in LAB can be stimulated by various environmental stresses [92]. Probiotic LAB enhance EPS synthesis making a physical barrier to protect cells from adverse environmental conditions [93]. There is evidence that sub-lethal thermal stress improves the survival of B. bifidum by enclosing the EPS layer around the cells [94]. A recent study also showed that there is an enhancement of EPS synthesis in L. plantarum VAL6 under stress conditions of pH and sodium chloride [20].
Synbiotics Applications
Synbiotics are currently considered one of the important approaches to better maintain human and animal health by preventing and lowering the risk of disease. There is evidence that synbiotics influence the microbial ecology of the intestinal tract and play a role in alleviating various diseases [3, 95]. These studies suggested that synbiotics can modulate the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio as well as inhibit harmful bacteria by direct antagonism, competitive exclusion, microbiota recovery healthy intestinal flora acceleration, e.g., maintaining the pH of the intestine, producing important metabolites, and promoting the restoration of the intestinal mucosal barrier. Furthermore, synbiotics have the potential to help fight multidrug-resistant microorganisms [96,97,98].
In humans, the effects of synbiotic supplementation were also studied in patients with chronic kidney disease [99], nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [100], autoimmune disease [101], diarrhea [102], and metabolic syndrome [103]. Although studies on the effects of synbiotics on livestock health and performance are still limited, it is worth mentioning that health impacts will likely depend on the combination of synbiotics and seem to be promising for the regulation of gut microbiota composition [104]. The beneficial effects of synbiotics have also been extensively studied in poultry and aquatic animals [2, 105]. The results of the in vivo trials performed are promising. Furthermore, recent developments in the application of synbiotics have significantly focused on evaluating their beneficial effects on animal health and performance (Table 1).
Recent studies have shown that the use of synbiotics is a promising approach to strengthen the immune system of chickens. The combination of probiotics and prebiotics can improve the survival and persistence of health-promoting organisms in the poultry gut because the substrate for fermentation is readily available [129]. Bodyweight gain and feed efficiency were significantly improved by the synbiotic treatment, and it is therefore recommended that synbiotics can be used as non-antibiotic growth promoters to improve the growth index in poultry [130].
Dietary and water-based probiotics and prebiotics together with synbiotics supplements are most beneficial for the control or treatment of bacterial, viral, and parasitic diseases in aquaculture. The effectiveness of these supplements has been determined by enhancing immune responses, stimulating the production of antimicrobial agents, altering the gut microbiota, competing for nutrients and binding sites, and conducting enzyme-related activities [131].
It is evident that most of the synbiotics used are mixtures of one or more strains of live microorganisms with one or more prebiotics, mainly FOS, GOS, and MOS (Table 1). Prebiotics appear to be used in this combination to help probiotics survive during the passage through the upper digestive tract while also impacting the intestinal microflora positively [132]. However, it has been reported that excessive intake of prebiotics, especially oligosaccharides such as FOS and GOS, could cause bloating owning to their fermentation in the colon [133]. In addition, prebiotics, in this case, also failed to protect during the production of probiotic powder before being incorporated into synbiotics. Therefore, the prebiotic biosynthesis within the probiotic for synbiotic self-production is a promising alternative.
Future Outlook
It should be noted that the positive health effects of probiotics and prebiotics are highly dependent on their appropriate combinations, which is necessary to consider the protective potential of prebiotics to probiotics. To further improve the efficiency of synbiotic utilization and to ensure their stability and viability, different strategies have been applied such as microencapsulation [134]. In addition, environmentally adaptive treatment is also a potential strategy to enhance the survival rate of probiotics and promote their functional properties in synbiotics [135]. Approaches using environmental adaptation to enhance the synthesis of prebiotic characterized components on the cell wall that improve bacterial viability have been discussed. According to the study results, it is possible to propose a model for enhancing synbiotics by applying environmental stresses (Fig. 4). In particular, exposure of probiotic strains to environmental challenges can trigger the reprogramming of cellular mechanisms for cell wall biosynthetic pathways, leading to microencapsulation with ingredients featured in prebiotics. Probiotics change the properties of the cell wall by producing more surrounding polysaccharides, S-layer proteins, peptidoglycans, and lipoteichoic acids in response to environmental challenges such as temperature and pH. As a result, living microbial cells contain both components characteristic of synbiotics.
Conclusions
Synbiotics have been shown to provide positive health benefits through the synergistic effect of prebiotics and probiotics. For maximum effectiveness, there is one aspect to consider that is the proper combination of these two ingredients and the viability of the product to achieve its goals. Using environmental stress adaptation may be a promising strategy to positively alter the biosynthesis of cell wall components to enhance survival. As a result, the probiotic strain fully exhibits the characteristics of a synbiotic with high viability by the protection of its microencapsulation which contains the prebiotic characterized components.
References
Swanson KS, Gibson GR, Hutkins R et al (2020) The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:687–701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-020-0344-2
Fazelnia K, Fakhraei J, Yarahmadi HM, Amini K (2021) Dietary supplementation of potential probiotics Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae and synbiotic improves growth performance and immune responses by modulation in intestinal system in broiler chicks challenged with Salmonella Typhimurium. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 13:1081–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-020-09737-5
Malik JK, Ahmad AH, Kalpana S, Prakash A, Gupta RC (2016) Synbiotics: safety and toxicity considerations. In: Gupta RC (ed) Nutraceuticals, 1st edn. Academic Press, Boston, pp 811–822
Helal M, Hussein M-D, Osman M, Shalaby AS, Ghaly M (2015) Production and prebiotic activity of exopolysaccharides derived from some probiotics. Egypt Pharm J 14:1–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-4315.154687
Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME et al (2017) Expert consensus document: the international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:491–502. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75
Lordan C, Thapa D, Ross R, Cotter P (2019) Potential for enriching next-generation health-promoting gut bacteria through prebiotics and other dietary components. Gut Microbes 11:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2019.1613124
Terpou A, Papadaki A, Lappa I, Kachrimanidou V, Bosnea L, Kopsahelis N (2019) Probiotics in food systems: significance and emerging strategies towards improved viability and delivery of enhanced beneficial value. Nutrients 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11071591
Roobab U, Batool Z, Manzoor MF, Shabbir MA, Khan MR, Aadil RM (2020) Sources, formulations, advanced delivery and health benefits of probiotics. Curr Opin Food Sci 32:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2020.01.003
Silva DR, Sardi JdCO, Pitangui NdS, Roque SM, Silva ACBd, Rosalen PL (2020) Probiotics as an alternative antimicrobial therapy: current reality and future directions. J Funct Foods 73:104080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2020.104080
Gaucher F, Bonnassie S, Rabah H et al (2019) Review: adaptation of beneficial propionibacteria, Lactobacilli, and Bifidobacteria improves tolerance toward technological and digestive stresses. Front Microbiol 10:841. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00841
Shori AB (2017) Microencapsulation improved probiotics survival during gastric transit. HAYATI J Biosci 24:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjb.2016.12.008
Rovinaru C, Pasarin D (2020) Application of microencapsulated synbiotics in fruit-based beverages. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 12:764–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-019-09579-w
Cui L-H, Yan C-R, Li H-S et al (2018) A new method of producing a natural antibacterial peptide by encapsulated probiotics internalized with inulin nanoparticles as prebiotics. J Microbiol Biotechnol 28:510–519. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1712.12008
Garcia-Diaz M, Birch D, Wan F, Nielsen H (2017) The role of mucus as an invisible cloak to transepithelial drug delivery by nanoparticles. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 124:107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2017.11.002
Milea ȘA, Vasile MA, Crăciunescu O et al (2020) Co-microencapsulation of flavonoids from yellow onion skins and lactic acid bacteria lead to multifunctional ingredient for nutraceutical and pharmaceutics applications. Pharmaceutics 12:1053. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12111053
Ephrem E, Najjar A, Charcosset C, Greige-Gerges H (2018) Encapsulation of natural active compounds, enzymes, and probiotics for fruit juice fortification, preservation, and processing: an overview. J Funct Foods 48:65–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2018.06.021
Yus Argón C, Gracia R, Larrea A et al (2019) Targeted release of probiotics from enteric microparticulated formulations. Polymers 11:1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11101668
Papadimitriou K, Alegría Á, Bron PA et al (2016) Stress physiology of lactic acid bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 80:837–890. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00076-15
Nguyen HT, Razafindralambo H, Blecker C, N’Yapo C, Thonart P, Delvigne F (2014) Stochastic exposure to sub-lethal high temperature enhances exopolysaccharides (EPS) excretion and improves Bifidobacterium bifidum cell survival to freeze–drying. Biochem Eng J 88:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2014.04.005
Nguyen P-T, Nguyen T-T, Vo T-N-T, Nguyen T-T-X, Hoang Q-K, Nguyen H-T (2021) Response of Lactobacillus plantarum VAL6 to challenges of pH and sodium chloride stresses. Sci Rep 11:1301. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80634-1
Kim SK, Guevarra RB, Kim YT et al (2019) Role of probiotics in human gut microbiome-associated diseases. J Microbiol Biotechnol 29:1335–1340. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1906.06064
Markowiak P, Śliżewska K (2018) The role of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in animal nutrition. Gut Pathogens 10:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-018-0250-0
Davani-Davari D, Negahdaripour M, Karimzadeh I et al (2019) Prebiotics: Definition, types, sources, mechanisms, and clinical applications. Foods 8:92. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8030092
Grosu-Tudor S, Zamfir M, Meulen R, Falony G, Vuyst LC (2013) Prebiotic potential of some exopolysaccharides produced by lactic acid bacteria. Romanian Biotechnol Lett 18:8666–8676. https://www.rombio.eu/vol18nr5/13%20Grosu-Tudor%20and%20Zamfir.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2022
Quero CD, Manonelles P, Fernández M, Abellán-Aynés O, López-Plaza D, Andreu-Caravaca L, Hinchado MD, Gálvez I, Ortega E (2021) Differential health effects on inflammatory, immunological and stress parameters in professional soccer players and sedentary individuals after consuming a synbiotic. A triple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study. Nutrients 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041321
Swanson KS, Collado MC, Endo A et al (2020) The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:687–701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-020-0344-2
Kolida S, Gibson G (2011) Synbiotics in health and disease. Ann Rev Food Sci Technol 2:373–393. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-022510-133739
Krausova G, Hynstova I, Svejstil R, Mrvikova I, Kadlec R (2021) Identification of synbiotics conducive to probiotics adherence to intestinal mucosa using an in vitro Caco-2 and HT29-MTX cell model. Processes 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9040569
Celebioglu HU, Olesen SV, Prehn K et al (2017) Mucin- and carbohydrate-stimulated adhesion and subproteome changes of the probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM. J Proteom 163:102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2017.05.015
Wang Y, Jiang Y, Deng Y et al (2020) Probiotic supplements: hope or hype? Front Microbiol 11:160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00160
Nunpan S, Suwannachart C, Wayakanon K (2019) Effect of prebiotics-enhanced probiotics on the growth of Streptococcus mutans. Int J Microbiol 2019:4623807. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4623807
MAA S (2014) Dysbiosis, probiotics, synbiotics and human health. Austin J Nutr Food Sci 2:1044. https://austinpublishinggroup.com/nutrition-food-sciences/fulltext/ajnfs-v2-id1044.php. Accessed 22 Apr 2022
de Vrese M, Schrezenmeir J (2008) Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics. Springer, Berlin
Krumbeck J, Walter J, Hutkins R (2018) Synbiotics for improved human health: recent developments, challenges, and opportunities. Ann Rev Food Sci Technol 9:451–479. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-030117-012757
Pandey K, Naik S, Vakil B (2015) Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics- a review. J Food Sci Technol 52:7577–7587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-1921-1
Chapot-Chartier M-P, Kulakauskas S (2014) Cell wall structure and function in Lactic acid bacteria. Microb Cell Fact 13:S9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2859-13-S1-S9
Lebeer S, Vanderleyden J, Keersmaecker S (2010) Host interactions of probiotic bacterial surface molecules: comparison with commensals and pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:171–184. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2297
Kleerebezem M, Hols B, Bernard E et al (2010) The extracellular biology of the Lactobacilli. FEMS Microbiol Rev 34:199–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2010.00208.x
Lebeer S, Vanderleyden J, De Keersmaecker SCJ (2008) Genes and molecules of lactobacilli supporting probiotic action. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 72:728. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00017-08
Delcour J, Ferain T, Deghorain M, Palumbo E, Hols P (1999) The biosynthesis and functionality of the cell-wall of lactic acid bacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 76:159–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002089722581
Neuhaus F, Baddiley J (2004) A continuum of anionic charge: structures and functions of D-alanyl-teichoic acids in gram-positive bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 67:686–723. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.67.4.686-723.2003
Claes I, Segers ME, Verhoeven TLA et al (2012) Lipoteichoic acid is an important microbe-associated molecular pattern of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. Microb Cell Fact 11:161. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2859-11-161
Granato D, Perotti F, Masserey I, Rouvet M, Golliard M, Servin A, Brassart D (1999) Cell surface-associated lipoteichoic acid acts as an adhesion factor for attachment of Lactobacillus johnsonii La1 to human enterocyte-like Caco-2 cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:1071–1077. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.65.3.1071-1077.1999
Buck B, Altermann E, Svingerud T, Klaenhammer T (2006) Functional analysis of putative adhesion factors in Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8344–8351. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.12.8344-8351.2005
Smit E, Jager D, Martinez B, Tielen F, Pouwels P (2003) Structural and functional analysis of the S-layer protein crystallisation domain of Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC 4356: evidence for protein–protein interaction of two subdomains. J Mol Biol 324:953–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(02)01135-X
Chapot-Chartier MP, Vinogradov E, Sadovskaya I et al (2010) Cell surface of Lactococcus lactis is covered by a protective polysaccharide pellicle. J Biol Chem 285:10464–10471. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.082958
Yasuda E, Serata M, Sako T (2008) Suppressive effect on activation of macrophages by Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota genes determining the synthesis of cell wall-associated polysaccharides. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:4746–4755. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00412-08
Lebeer S, Claes I, Verhoeven T, Vanderleyden J, Keersmaecker S (2010) Exopolysaccharides of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG form a protective shield against innate immune factors in the intestine. Microb Biotechnol 4:368–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2010.00199.x
Mbye M, Baig MA, AbuQamar SF et al (2020) Updates on understanding of probiotic lactic acid bacteria responses to environmental stresses and highlights on proteomic analyses. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 19:1110–1124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12554
Grujović M, Mladenović K, Nikodijević D, Čomić L (2019) Autochthonous lactic acid bacteria-presentation of potential probiotics application. Biotechnol Lett 41:1319–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-019-02729-8
Bove P, Russo P, Capozzi V, Gallone A, Spano G, Fiocco D (2013) Lactobacillus plantarum passage through an oro-gastro-intestinal tract simulator: carrier matrix effect and transcriptional analysis of genes associated to stress and probiosis. Microbiol Res 168:351–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2013.01.004
Ferrando V, Quiberoni A, Reinheimer J, Suárez V (2016) Functional properties of Lactobacillus plantarum strains: a study in vitro of heat stress influence. Food Microbiol 54:154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2015.10.003
Chen M-J, Tang H-Y, Chiang M-L (2017) Effects of heat, cold, acid and bile salt adaptations on the stress tolerance and protein expression of kefir-isolated probiotic Lactobacillus kefiranofaciens M1. Food Microbiol 66:20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2017.03.020
Hernández-Alcántara AM, Wacher C, Llamas MG, López P, Pérez-Chabela ML (2018) Probiotic properties and stress response of thermotolerant lactic acid bacteria isolated from cooked meat products. LWT 91:249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.12.063
Haddaji N, Boubaker K, Lagha R, Khouadja S, Bakhrouf A (2015) Effect of high temperature on viability of Lactobacillus casei and analysis of secreted and GroEL proteins profiles. J Bacteriol Res 7:29–34. https://doi.org/10.5897/JBR2015.0155
Varmanen P, Savijoki K (2011) Responses of Lactic Acid Bacteria to heat stress. In: E. Tsakalidou KP (ed) Stress responses of Lactic Acid Bacteria, 1st edn. Springer, New York, pp 55–66
Fonseca F, Girardeau A, Passot S (2021) Freeze-drying of lactic acid bacteria: a stepwise approach for developing a freeze-drying protocol based on physical properties. In: Wolkers WF, Oldenhof H (eds) Cryopreservation and Freeze-Drying Protocols, 1st edn. Springer, US, New York, NY, pp 703–719
Song S, Bae D-W, Lim K, Griffiths MW, Oh S (2014) Cold stress improves the ability of Lactobacillus plantarum L67 to survive freezing. Int J Food Microbiol 191:135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.09.017
Keto-Timonen R, Hietala N, Palonen E, Hakakorpi A, Lindström M, Korkeala H (2016) Cold shock proteins: a minireview with special emphasis on Csp-family of Enteropathogenic Yersinia. Front Microbiol 7:1151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01151
Mangiagalli M, Sarusi G, Kaleda A et al (2018) Structure of a bacterial ice binding protein with two faces of interaction with ice. The FEBS J 285:1653–1666. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.14434
Polo L, Mañes-Lázaro R, Olmeda I, Cruz-Pio LE, Medina Á, Ferrer S, Pardo I (2017) Influence of freezing temperatures prior to freeze-drying on viability of yeasts and lactic acid bacteria isolated from wine. J Appl Microbiol 122:1603–1614. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13465
Haddaji N, Khouadja S, Fdhila K et al (2015) Acid stress suggests different determinants for polystyrene and HeLa cell adhesion in Lactobacillus casei. J Dairy Sci 98:4302–4309. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9198
Mills S, Stanton C, Fitzgerald G, Ross R (2011) Enhancing the stress responses of probiotics for a lifestyle from gut to product and back again. Microb Cell Fact 10(Suppl 1):S19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2859-10-S1-S19
Sánchez B, Champomier-Vergès M-C, Collado MdC et al (2007) Low-pH adaptation and the acid tolerance response of Bifidobacterium longum biotype longum. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:6450–6459. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00886-07
Wang C, Cui Y, Qu X (2018) Mechanisms and improvement of acid resistance in lactic acid bacteria. Arch Microbiol 200:195–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-017-1446-2
Pérez B, Benomar N, Gómez NC et al (2017) Proteomic analysis of Lactobacillus pentosus for the identification of potential markers involved in acid resistance and their influence on other probiotic features. Food Microbiol 72:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2017.11.006
Pato U, Surono IS (2013) Bile and acid tolerance of lactic acid bacteria isolated from tempoyak and their probiotic potential. Int J Agric Technol 9:1849–1862. https://www.thaiscience.info/journals/Article/IJAT/10895726.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2022
Endo A, Dicks LMT (2014) Physiology of the LAB. In Holzapfel WH, Wood BJ (eds) Lactic Acid Bacteria, 1st edn. Wiley, New York, pp 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118655252.ch2
Zhang W, Guo H, Cao C et al (2017) Adaptation of Lactobacillus casei Zhang to gentamycin involves an alkaline shock protein. Front Microbiol 8:2316. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02316
Cao M, Kobel PA, Morshedi MM, Wu MFW, Paddon C, Helmann JD (2002) Defining the Bacillus subtilis σW regulon: a comparative analysis of promoter consensus search, run-off transcription/macroarray analysis (ROMA), and transcriptional profiling approaches. J Mol Biol 316:443–457. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.2001.5372
Palomino MM, Waehner PM, Martin JF et al (2016) Influence of osmotic stress on the profile and gene expression of surface layer proteins in Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC 4356. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:8475–8484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7698-y
Yin X, Weitzel F, Jiménez-López C et al (2020) Directing Effect of bacterial extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) on calcite organization and EPS–carbonate composite aggregate formation. Crystal Growth Design 20:1467–1484. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.9b01113
Mack D, Michail S, Wei S, McDougall L, Hollingsworth M (1999) Probiotics inhibit enteropathogenic E. Coli adherence in vitro by inducing intestinal mucin gene expression. American J Physiol 276:G941-950. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpgi.1999.276.4.G941
Fonseca HC, de Sousa MD, Ramos CL, Dias DR, Schwan RF (2021) Probiotic properties of lactobacilli and their ability to inhibit the adhesion of Enteropathogenic bacteria to Caco-2 and HT-29 cells. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 13:102–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-020-09659-2
Maldonado Galdeano C, Cazorla SI, Lemme Dumit JM, Vélez E, Perdigón G (2019) Beneficial effects of probiotic consumption on the immune system. Ann Nutr Metabol 74:115–124. https://doi.org/10.1159/000496426
Gerbino E, Carasi P, Mobili P, Serradell MA, Gómez-Zavaglia A (2015) Role of S-layer proteins in bacteria. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 31:1877–1887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-015-1952-9
Hynönen U, Kant R, Lähteinen T et al (2014) Functional characterization of probiotic surface layer protein-carrying Lactobacillus amylovorus strains. BMC Microbiol 14:199. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-14-199
Scholz H, Riedmann E, Witte A, Lubitz W, Kuen B (2001) S-Layer variation in Bacillus stearothermophilus PV72 is based on dna rearrangements between the chromosome and the naturally occurring megaplasmids. J Bacteriol 183:1672–1679. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.183.5.1672-1679.2001
Jakava-Viljanen M, Avall-Jääskeläinen S, Messner P, Sleytr UB, Palva A (2002) Isolation of three new surface layer protein genes (slp) from Lactobacillus brevis ATCC 14869 and characterization of the change in their expression under aerated and anaerobic conditions. J Bacteriol 184:6786–6795. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.184.24.6786-6795.2002
Schär-Zammaretti P, Dillmann M-L, D’Amico N, Affolter M, Ubbink J (2006) Influence of fermentation medium composition on physicochemical surface properties of Lactobacillus acidophilus. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8165–8173. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.12.8165-8173.2005
Marco ML, Vries MCd, Wels M et al (2010) Convergence in probiotic Lactobacillus gut-adaptive responses in humans and mice. The ISME J 4:1481–1484. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2010.61
Grosu-Tudor S-S, Brown L, Hebert EM et al (2016) S-layer production by Lactobacillus acidophilus IBB 801 under environmental stress conditions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:4573–4583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7355-5
Sukhithasri V, Nisha N, Biswas L, Kumar VA, Biswas R (2013) Innate immune recognition of microbial cell wall components and microbial strategies to evade such recognitions. Microbiol Res 168:396–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2013.02.005
Huang J, Li J, Li Q et al (2020) Peptidoglycan derived from Lactobacillus rhamnosus MLGA up-regulates the expression of chicken beta-defensin 9 without triggering an inflammatory response. Innate Immun 26:733–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753425920949917
Wu C, Zhang J, Chen W, Wang M, Du G, Chen J (2012) A combined physiological and proteomic approach to reveal lactic-acid-induced alterations in Lactobacillus casei Zhang and its mutant with enhanced lactic acid tolerance. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 93:707–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-011-3757-6
Jin J, Zhang B, Guo H et al (2012) Mechanism analysis of acid tolerance response of Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum BBMN 68 by gene expression profile using RNA-sequencing. PloS One 7:e50777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050777
Jin J, Qin Q, Guo H et al (2015) Effect of pre-stressing on the acid-stress response in Bifidobacterium revealed using proteomic and physiological approaches. PLoS ONE 10:e0117702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117702
Ramos AN, Sesto Cabral ME, Noseda D, Bosch A, Yantorno OM, Valdez JC (2012) Antipathogenic properties of Lactobacillus plantarum on Pseudomonas aeruginosa: the potential use of its supernatants in the treatment of infected chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 20:552–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00798.x
İspirli H, Demirbaş F, Dertli E (2018) Glucan type exopolysaccharide (EPS) shows prebiotic effect and reduces syneresis in chocolate pudding. J Food Sci Technol 55:3821–3826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-3181-3
Hongpattarakere T, Cherntong N, Wichienchot S, Kolida S, Rastall RA (2012) In vitro prebiotic evaluation of exopolysaccharides produced by marine isolated lactic acid bacteria. Carbohydr Polym 87:846–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.08.085
Collado MC, Gueimonde M, Sanz Y, Salminen S (2006) Adhesion properties and competitive pathogen exclusion ability of Bifidobacteria with acquired acid resistance. J Food Prot 69:1675–1679. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-69.7.1675
Nguyen P-T, Nguyen T-T, Bui D-C et al (2020) Exopolysaccharide production by lactic acid bacteria: the manipulation of environmental stresses for industrial applications. AIMS Microbiol 6:451–469. https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2020027
Ruas-Madiedo P, Hugenholtz J, Zoon P (2002) An overview of the functionality of exopolysaccharides produced by lactic acid bacteria. Int Dairy J 12:163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(01)00160-1
Huu Thanh N, Razafindralambo H, Blecker C, Yapo NC, Thonart P, Delvigne F (2014) Stochastic exposure to sub-lethal high temperature enhances exopolysaccharides (EPS) excretion and improves Bifidobacterium bifidum cell survival to freeze-drying. Biochem Eng J 88:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2014.04.005
Gyawali R, Nwamaioha N, Fiagbor R, Zimmerman T, Newman RH, Ibrahim SA (2019) The role of prebiotics in disease prevention and health promotion. In: Watson RR, Preedy VR (eds) Dietary interventions in gastrointestinal diseases, 1st edn. Academic Press, pp 151–167
Spinler J, Auchtung J, Brown A et al (2017) Next-generation probiotics targeting Clostridium difficile through precursor-directed antimicrobial biosynthesis. Infect Immun 85:IAI.00303–00317. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00303-17
Newman AM, Arshad M (2020) The Role of Probiotics, Prebiotics and Synbiotics in Combating Multidrug-Resistant Organisms. Clin Ther 42:1637–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.06.011
Li C, Niu Z, Zou M et al (2020) Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics regulate the intestinal microbiota differentially and restore the relative abundance of specific gut microorganisms. J Dairy Sci 103:5816–5829. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-18003
Bakhtiary M, Morvaridzadeh M, Agah S et al (2021) Effect of probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic supplementation on cardiometabolic and oxidative stress parameters in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Ther 43:e71–e96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.12.021
Scorletti E, Afolabi PR, Miles EA et al (2020) Synbiotics alter fecal microbiomes, but not liver fat or fibrosis, in a randomized trial of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 158:1597-1610.e1597. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.031
Askari G, Ghavami A, Shahdadian F, Moravejolahkami AR (2021) Effect of synbiotics and probiotics supplementation on autoimmune diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin Nutr 40:3221–3234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.015
Mbusa Kambale R, Nancy F, Ngaboyeka G, Kasengi J, Bindels L, Van der Linden D (2020) Effects of probiotics and synbiotics on diarrhea in undernourished children: systematic review with meta-analysis. Clin Nutr 40:3158–3169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.12.026
Núñez-Sánchez MA, Herisson FM, Cluzel GL, Caplice NM (2021) Metabolic syndrome and synbiotic targeting of the gut microbiome. Curr Opin Food Sci 41:60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2021.02.014
Malik JK, Prakash A, Srivastava AK, Gupta RC (2019) Synbiotics in animal health and production. In: Gupta R, Srivastava A, Lall R (eds) Nutraceuticals in Veterinary Medicine, 1st edn. Springer, Cham, pp 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04624-8_20
Aftabgard M, Salarzadeh A, Mohseni M (2019) The Effects of a synbiotic mixture of Galacto-oligosaccharides and Bacillus strains in Caspian Salmon, Salmo trutta caspius fingerlings. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 11:1300–1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-018-9498-4
Eslamparast T, Poustchi H, Zamani F, Sharafkhah M, Malekzadeh R, Hekmatdoost A (2014) Synbiotic supplementation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Am J Clin Nutr 99:535–542. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.068890
Neyrinck A, Rodriguez J, Taminiau B et al (2021) Improvement of gastrointestinal discomfort and inflammatory status by a synbiotic in middle-aged adults: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. Sci Rep 11:2627. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80947-1
Phavichitr N, Wang S, Chomto S et al (2021) Impact of synbiotics on gut microbiota during early life: a randomized, double-blind study. Sci Rep 11:3534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83009-2
Alizadeh M, Munyaka P, Yitbarek A, Echeverry H, Rodriguez-Lecompte JC (2017) Maternal antibody decay and antibody-mediated immune responses in chicken pullets fed prebiotics and synbiotics. Poul Sci 96:58–64. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew244
Baffoni L, Gaggìa F, Garofolo G et al (2017) Evidence of Campylobacter jejuni reduction in broilers with early synbiotic administration. Int J Food Microbiol 251:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.04.001
Luoma A, Markazi A, Shanmugasundaram R, Murugesan GR, Mohnl M, Selvaraj R (2017) Effect of synbiotic supplementation on layer production and cecal Salmonella load during a Salmonella challenge. Poul Sci 96:4208–4216. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex251
Krueger LA, Spangler DA, Vandermyde DR, Sims MD, Ayangbile GA (2017) Avi-Lution® supplemented at 1.0 or 2.0 g/kg in feed improves the growth performance of broiler chickens during challenge with bacitracin-resistant Clostridium perfringens. Poul Sci 96:2595–2600. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex074
Mohammed A, Mahmoud M, Murugesan R, Cheng HW (2021) Effect of a synbiotic supplement on fear response and memory assessment of broiler chickens subjected to heat stress. Animals 11:427. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020427
Bogucka J, Vieira Santos D, Bogusławska-Tryk M, Dankowiakowska A, Da Costa R, Bednarczyk M (2019) Microstructure of the small intestine in broiler chickens fed a diet with probiotic or synbiotic supplementation. J Anim Physiol a Anim Nutr 103:1785–1791. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13182
Sopková D, Hertelyová Z, Andrejčáková Z et al (2017) The application of probiotics and flaxseed promotes metabolism of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in pigs. J Appl Anim Res 45:93–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2015.1124333
Chae J, Pajarillo EA, Oh JK, Kim H, Kang D-K (2016) Revealing the combined effects of lactulose and probiotic enterococci on the swine faecal microbiota using 454 pyrosequencing. Microb Biotechnol 9:486–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12370
Czyżewska-Dors E, Kwit K, Stasiak E, Rachubik J, Śliżewska K, Pomorska-Mól M (2018) Effects of newly developed synbiotic and commercial probiotic products on the haematological indices, serum cytokines, acute phase proteins concentration, and serum immunoglobulins amount in sows and growing pigs - A pilot study. J Vet Res 62:317–328. https://doi.org/10.2478/jvetres-2018-0046
Duarte ME, Tyus J, Kim SW (2020) Synbiotic effects of enzyme and probiotics on intestinal health and growth of newly weaned pigs challenged with enterotoxigenic F18+Escherichia coli. Front Vet Sci 7:573. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00573
Lei XJ, Zhang WL, Cheong JY, Lee SI, Kim IH (2018) Effect of antibiotics and synbiotic on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and faecal microbial shedding in growing-finishing pigs. J Appl Anim Res 46:1202–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1484359
Marcondes MI, Pereira TR, Chagas JCC et al (2016) Performance and health of Holstein calves fed different levels of milk fortified with symbiotic complex containing pre- and probiotics. Trop Anim Health Prod 48:1555–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-016-1127-1
Cavalcante RB, Telli GS, Tachibana L et al (2020) Probiotics, Prebiotics and Synbiotics for Nile tilapia: Growth performance and protection against Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Aquac Rep 17:100343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100343
Yao W, Li X, Zhang C, Wang J, Cai Y, Leng X (2021) Effects of dietary synbiotics supplementation methods on growth, intestinal health, non-specific immunity and disease resistance of Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. Fish Shellfish Immunol 112:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2021.02.011
Huynh T-G, Cheng A-C, Chi C-C, Chiu K-H, Liu C-H (2018) A synbiotic improves the immunity of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei: metabolomic analysis reveal compelling evidence. Fish Shellfish Immunol 79:284–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2018.05.031
Villumsen KR, Ohtani M, Forberg T, Aasum E, Tinsley J, Bojesen AM (2020) Synbiotic feed supplementation significantly improves lipid utilization and shows discrete effects on disease resistance in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Sci Rep 10:16993. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73812-8
Hamsah H, Widanarni W, Alimuddin A, Yuhana M, Junior MZ, Hidayatullah D (2019) Immune response and resistance of Pacific white shrimp larvae administered probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic through the bio-encapsulation of Artemia sp. Aquac Int 27:567–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-019-00346-w
Huynh Truong G, Hu SY, Chiu CS, Truong P, Liu CH (2019) Bacterial population in intestines of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei fed a synbiotic containing Lactobacillus plantarum and galactooligosaccharide. Aquac Res 50. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13951
Wongsasak U, Chaijamrus S, Kumkhong S, Boonanuntanasarn S (2015) Effects of dietary supplementation with β-glucan and synbiotics on immune gene expression and immune parameters under ammonia stress in Pacific white shrimp. Aquaculture 436:179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.10.028
Huynh Truong G, Chi C-C, Phuong N, Hien T, Cheng A-C, Liu C-H (2018) Effects of synbiotic containing Lactobacillus plantarum 7–40 and galactooligosaccharide on the growth performance of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquac Res 49:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13701
Hamid S, Magray S (2012) Impact and manipulation of gut microflora in poultry: a review. J Anim Vet Adv 11:873–877. https://doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2012.873.877
Ashayerizadeh A, Dabiri N, Mirzadeh K, Ghorbani M (2011) Effects of dietary inclusion of several biological feed additives on growth response of broiler chickens. J Cell Anim Biol 5:61–65. https://doi.org/10.5897/JCAB.9000059
Butt UD, Lin N, Akhter N, Siddiqui T, Li S, Wu B (2021) Overview of the latest developments in the role of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in shrimp aquaculture. Fish Shellfish Immunol 114:263–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2021.05.003
Fei Y, Chen Z, Han S, Zhang S, Zhang T, Lu Y, Berglund B, Xiao H, Li L, Yao M (2021) Role of prebiotics in enhancing the function of next-generation probiotics in gut microbiota. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 29:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1958744
Niittynen L, Kajander K, Korpela R (2007) Galacto-oligosaccharides and bowel function. Scand J Food Nutr 51:62–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482970701414596
Rashidinejad A, Bahrami A, Rehman A, Rezaei A, Babazadeh A, Singh H, Jafari SM (2020) Co-encapsulation of probiotics with prebiotics and their application in functional/synbiotic dairy products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 30:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1854169
Ma J, Xu C, Liu F, Hou J, Shao H, Yu W (2021) Stress adaptation and cross-protection of Lactobacillus plantarum KLDS 1.0628. CyTA - J Food 19:72–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2020.1859619
Funding
Phu-Tho Nguyen was funded by Vingroup JSC and supported by the Master, PhD Scholarship Programme of Vingroup Innovation Foundation (VINIF), Institute of Big Data, code VINIF.2021.TS.110.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nguyen, TT., Nguyen, PT., Pham, MN. et al. Synbiotics: a New Route of Self-production and Applications to Human and Animal Health. Probiotics & Antimicro. Prot. 14, 980–993 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-022-09960-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-022-09960-2