Hill, C. et al. Professional agreement file. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics agreement declaration on the scope and proper usage of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 11, 506– 514 (2014 ).
Google Scholar.
Sun, H. et al. Probiotics synergized with traditional programs in handling Parkinson’s illness. npj Parkinsons Dis. 8, 62 (2022 ).
Google Scholar.
Sun, B. et al. Bifidobacterium lactis probio-m8 adjuvant treatment provides included advantages to clients with coronary artery illness through target modulation of the gut-heart/- brain axes. mSystems 7, e0010022 (2022 ).
Google Scholar.
Lee, S. H. et al. Bifidobacterium bifidum pressures synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitors to lower tumour concern in mice. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 277– 288 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Gao, G. et al. Adjunctive probiotic lactobacillus rhamnosus probio-m9 administration boosts the impact of Anti-PD-1 antitumor treatment through bring back antibiotic-disrupted gut microbiota. Front. Immunol. 12, 772532 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Liu, A. et al. Adjunctive probiotics minimizes asthmatic signs through regulating the gut microbiome and serum metabolome. Microbiol. Spectr. 9, e0085921 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Xu, H. et al. Adjunctive treatment with probiotics partly minimizes signs and minimizes swelling in clients with irritable bowel syndrome. Eur. J. Nutr. 60, 2553– 2565 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Suez, J., Zmora, N., Segal, E. & & Elinav, E. The pros, cons, and lots of unknowns of probiotics. Nat. Medication. 25, 716– 729 (2019 ).
Google Scholar.
Besselink, M. G. et al. Probiotic prophylaxis in anticipated serious intense pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 371, 651– 659 (2008 ).
Google Scholar.
Yelin, I. et al. Genomic and epidemiological proof of bacterial transmission from probiotic pill to blood in ICU clients. Nat. Med 25, 1728– 1732 (2019 ).
Google Scholar.
Salminen, S. et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) agreement declaration on the meaning and scope of postbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 18, 649– 667 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Abbasi, A. et al. The biological activities of postbiotics in food poisonings. Crit. Rev. Food. Sci. Nutr. 62, 5983– 9004 (2022 ).
Google Scholar.
Cuevas-González, P. F., Liceaga, A. M. & & Aguilar-Toalá, J. E. Postbiotics and paraprobiotics: from principles to applications. Food Res. Int. 136, 109502 (2020 ).
Google Scholar.
Moradi, M. et al. Postbiotics produced by lactic acid germs: the next frontier in food security. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 19, 3390– 3415 (2020 ).
Google Scholar.
Sabahi, S. et al. Postbiotics as the brand-new frontier in food and pharmaceutical research study. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr 1– 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2056727 (2022 ).
Ordás, I., Eckmann, L., Talamini, M., Baumgart, D. C. & & Sandborn, W. J. Ulcerative colitis. Lancet 380, 1606– 1619 (2012 ).
Google Scholar.
de Souza, H. S. P. & & Fiocchi, C. Immunopathogenesis of IBD: present cutting-edge. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 13, 13– 27 (2016 ).
Ni, J., Wu, G. D., Albenberg, L. & & Tomov, V. T. Gut microbiota and IBD: causation or connection? Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 14, 573– 584 (2017 ).
Google Scholar.
Bian, X. et al. Administration of akkermansia muciniphila ameliorates dextran sulfate sodium-induced ulcerative colitis in mice. Front. Microbiol. 10, 2259 (2019 ).
Google Scholar.
Chen, C. L., Hsu, P. Y. & & Pan, T. M. Healing results of Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei NTU 101 powder on dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis in mice. J. Food Drug Anal. 27, 83– 92 (2019 ).
Google Scholar.
Wang, G. et al. The ameliorative impact of a Lactobacillus pressure with excellent adhesion capability versus dextran sulfate sodium-induced murine colitis. Food Funct. 10, 397– 409 (2019 ).
Google Scholar.
Din, A. U. et al. Repressive impact of Bifidobacterium bifidum ATCC 29521 on colitis and its system. J. Nutr. Biochem. 79, 108353 (2020 ).
Google Scholar.
Yu, P., Ke, C., Guo, J., Zhang, X. & & Li, B. Lactobacillus plantarum L15 minimizes colitis by preventing LPS-mediated NF-κB activation and ameliorates DSS-induced gut microbiota dysbiosis. Front. Immunol. 11, 575173 (2020 ).
Google Scholar.
Chen, Z. et al. Lactobacillus fermentum ZS40 ameliorates swelling in mice with ulcerative colitis caused by dextran sulfate salt. Front. Pharm. 12, 700217 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Dou, X. et al. Lactobacillus casei ATCC 393 and it’s metabolites ease dextran sulphate sodium-induced ulcerative colitis in mice through the NLRP3-( Caspase-1)/ IL-1β path. Food Funct. 12, 12022– 12035 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Gao, H. et al. Saccharomyces boulardii ameliorates dextran sulfate sodium-induced ulcerative colitis in mice by controling NF-κB and Nrf2 signaling paths. Oxid. Medication. Cell Longev. 2021, 1622375 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Han, T. et al. Bifidobacterium infantis keeps genome stability in ulcerative colitis through controling anaphase-promoting complex subunit 7. Front. Microbiol. 12, 761113 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Qu, S. et al. Akkermansia muciniphila minimizes dextran sulfate salt (DSS)- caused severe colitis by NLRP3 activation. Microbiol. Spectr. 9, e0073021 (2021 ).
Google Scholar.
Huang, Y. Y. et al. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DMDL 9010 minimizes dextran salt sulfate( DSS)- caused colitis and behavioral conditions by assisting in microbiota-gut-brain axis balance. Food Funct. 13(* ), 411– 424 (2022). CAS. PubMed. Google Scholar.
Food Funct. 13 , 2985– 2997 (2022 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Microbiol. Spectr. 10 , e0136822 (2022 ). PubMed.
Google Scholar.
J. Agric Food Chem. 70 , 1547– 1561 (2022 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Clin. Pharm. Ther. 107 , 452– 461 (2020 ). CAS.
Google Scholar.
Front. Pharm. 12 , 755825 (2021 ). CAS.
Google Scholar.
Front. Immunol. 12 , 777147 (2021 ). CAS.
PubMed.
PubMed Central.
Google Scholar.
Food Funct. 13 , 2216– 2227 (2022 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Nucleic Acids Res. 44 , D471– D480 (2016 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 61 , 1787– 1803 (2021 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Nutrients 14 , 227 (2022 ). CAS.
PubMed.
PubMed Central.
Google Scholar.
J. Mater. Chem. B 10 , 4002– 4011 (2022 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Front. Immunol. 12 , 777665 (2021 ). CAS.
PubMed.
PubMed Central.
Google Scholar.
Food Funct. 11 , 5205– 5222 (2020 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Food Funct. 11 , 3823– 3837 (2020 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Front. Microbiol. 13 , 955112 (2022 ). PubMed.
PubMed Central.
Google Scholar.
J. Medication. Food 25 , 146– 157 (2022 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 105 , 5785– 5794 (2021 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Food Funct. 13 , 5914– 5924 (2022 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 19 , 77– 94 (2020 ). PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 17 , 223– 237 (2020 ). PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Food Funct. 11 , 1279– 1291 (2020 ). PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Nutr. Res. Rev. 23 , 37– 46 (2010 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Dig. Dis. Sci. 38 , 1722– 1734 (1993 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.
Clin. Exp. Immunol. 114 , 385– 391 (1998 ). CAS.
PubMed.
PubMed Central.
Google Scholar.
Nat. Approaches 9 , 357– 359 (2012 ). CAS.
PubMed.
PubMed Central.
Google Scholar.
Nat. Commun. 10 , 1014 (2019 ). PubMed.
PubMed Central.
Google Scholar.
Nat. Approaches 15 , 962– 968 (2018 ). CAS.
PubMed.
PubMed Central.
Google Scholar.
Bioinformatics 31 , 926– 932 (2015 ). CAS.
PubMed.
Google Scholar.