Next Article in Journal
Investigation of a Calibration Method of Coriolis Mass Flowmeters by Density- and Pressure-Matching Approaches for Hydrogen Refueling Stations
Next Article in Special Issue
Enrichment of Fermented Milk Drinks with Mespilus germanica and Crataegus azarolus Fruit Extracts
Previous Article in Journal
Deep Learning and Bayesian Hyperparameter Optimization: A Data-Driven Approach for Diamond Grit Segmentation toward Grinding Wheel Characterization
Previous Article in Special Issue
Lactoplantibacillus plantarum KG Lysates Inhibit the Internalization of Staphylococcus aureus by Human Keratinocytes through the Induction of Human Beta-Defensin 3
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 24
10.3390/app122412607
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Probiotic Incorporation into Yogurt and Various Novel Yogurt-Based Products

by
Douglas W. Olson
and
Kayanush J. Aryana
*
School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Dairy Science Building, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(24), 12607; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412607
Submission received: 12 September 2022 / Revised: 7 November 2022 / Accepted: 11 November 2022 / Published: 8 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Development of Healthy Dairy Products)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Probiotics are commonly added to yogurt to provide many health benefits for the consumer. A description is provided for some commonly used probiotics in yogurt. A GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list of probiotic bacteria that can be added to yogurt or similar types of products is provided. Additionally, prebiotics, synbiotics (combination of prebiotics and probiotics), postbiotics, paraprobiotics, and psychobiotics can be added to yogurt. Probiotic yogurt can come in various forms in addition to spoonable yogurt, and yogurt can be used as an ingredient in other food products. Many useful functional ingredients can be applied to probiotic yogurt. The safety of probiotics must be addressed, especially for critically ill patients and other susceptible populations. Probiotics must survive within yogurt throughout its entire shelf-life and within the gastrointestinal tract after consumption by the consumer to provide health benefits, and many techniques can be used to maintain survival of probiotics in yogurt. Furthermore, probiotics can be added to Greek yogurt acid whey. Many opportunities exist for adding a wide variety of probiotics to a wide variety of yogurt-based products.

1. Introduction

Legal requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for yogurt are stated in 21 CFR 131.200 (www.ecfr.gov) (accessed on 24 August 2022) [1]. Yogurt is basically described as the food produced by culturing certain types of dairy ingredients with a bacterial culture that includes Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus. Optional ingredients that may be added to yogurt include other cultures, nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners, flavoring ingredients, color additives, stabilizers, emulsifiers, preservatives, and vitamins A and D. Dairy ingredients must be pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized and may be homogenized before addition of the culture. Before addition of bulky flavorings, yogurt must contain at least 3.25% milkfat and 8.25% milk solids-not-fat and either have a titratable acidity of at least 0.7% (expressed as lactic acid) or a pH of 4.6 or less. The phrase “contains live and active cultures” may be displayed on the package if there are at least 107 cfu/g of viable bacteria when manufactured and if it can reasonably be expected to have 106 cfu/g during its entire shelf-life. The viable microorganisms may be inactivated after culturing to prolong the shelf-life of yogurt. The definitions and standards of identity for low-fat yogurt (previously described in 21 CFR 131.203) and non-fat yogurt (previously described in 21 CFR 131.206) have been revoked as of 7 July 2021 (www.federalregister.gov) (accessed on 24 August 2022) [2].
Sales of yogurt and probiotics are large and still growing. According to a 2021 report by Statista, U.S. sales of yogurt were $7.24 billion in 2021 compared to $5.58 billion in 2011 [3]. The Greek yogurt share of the yogurt market was 51% in 2021 [4]. Frozen yogurt production in the U.S. was 46.4 million gallons in 2021 [5]. The annual growth of probiotic yogurt was 6.6% in the U.S. in 2020 compared to 11% for the overall yogurt market [6]. The global value of the probiotics market was $58 billion in 2021 and is predicted to grow at an annual rate of 7.5% until 2030 [7], and the global probiotic drink market was worth $13.65 billion in 2019 with an expected annual growth rate of 6.1% from 2020 to 2027 [8].

2. History of Discovery and Definitions of Probiotics

Experiments for studying effects of bacteria on treating health problems and promoting good health have been performed for a long time. Theodor Escherich has been credited as the first pediatric infectious disease physician and described Bacterium coli commune (now referred to as Escherichia coli) in 1886 [9]. While working under Theodor Escherich, Dr. Józef Brudziński treated infants for acute infectious diarrhea by using a Bacillus lactis aërogenes suspension described in publications from 1899 [10,11]. Although Élie Metchnikoff [12] believed that intestinal putrefaction can shorten life, he noted the work of Dr. Brudziński and similar work by Dr. Henry Tissier and recommended people “to absorb large quantities of microbes”. He believed that lactic bacteria can fight against intestinal putrefaction. He also wrote that Stamen Grigoroff observed many centenarians in Bulgaria, which is a region where yahourth (yogurt) was commonly consumed [12]. The fact that diet affects the types of bacteria that develops within the intestinal tract was first clearly established by Herter and Kendall in 1910, but suggested as early as 1886 by Escherich and Hirschler [13].
Many of the starter cultures and probiotics now used in yogurt making were first described in the late 1800s or early 1900s. The name “Streptococcos” was first used in 1874 by Albert Theodor Billroth [14]. Streptococcus thermophilus (later reclassified as Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus by Farrow and Collins in 1984 [15] but revived back to Streptococcus thermophilus by Schleifer et al. in 1991 [16]) was described by S. Orla-Jensen in 1919 [17]. In 1901, Martinus Beijerinck proposed the genus Lactobacillus to include Gram-positive, fermentative, facultatively anaerobic, non-sporeforming bacteria [18]. Stamen Grigoroff discovered Bulgarian bacillus (now Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus) in 1905 [19]. Lactobacillus acidophilus (originally called Bacillus acidophilus) was described by Ernst Moro in 1900 [20]. In 1899 and 1900, Henry Tissier first described Bacillus bifidus communis, later referred to as Lactobacillus bifidus and now referred to as Bifidobacterium [21]. He found that Bifidobacteria was the main type of bacteria comprising the gut microflora of breast-fed babies and Bifidobacteria could treat acute gastroenteritis [19].
Dr. Isaac Carosso recommended to his patients who suffered from gastrointestinal problems to consume yogurt. Afterwards, he started producing yogurt and founded the Danone Company in 1919 [19].
The term “probiotic” (meaning “for life”) originated in 1953 from Werner Kollath to mean “active substances that are essential for a healthy development of life” [22]. Lilly and Stillwell [23] used the term probiotic as “substances secreted by one organism which stimulate the growth of another” in 1965. Parker [24] described probiotics as “organisms and substances which contribute to intestinal microbial balance” in 1974. Fuller [25] defined probiotics as “A live microbial feed supplement which beneficially affects the host animal by improving its intestinal microbial balance” in 1989. A panel from the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics defined probiotic as “live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host” in 2014 [26].

3. Criteria for and Types of Probiotics and Its Use in Foods

In order for a microorganism to be classified as a probiotic, the microorganism must be properly characterized, safe for its intended use, shown to confer a health benefit to the host by at least one human clinical trial, and be viable at the required dose until the end of the product shelf life [27]. In general, probiotic viability is affected by temperature, water activity, pH, ingredients, oxygen level, packaging materials, and storage time [28]. Selection criteria for incorporation of a probiotic into a food includes being of a human or food origin, safe for human consumption, maintaining desirable properties in the final product, survival during passage through the gastrointestinal tract including sufficient acid and bile tolerance, adhesion to intestinal mucosal surface, and providing proven health benefits to the host [29]. For example, survival of greater than 7 log cfu/g for Limosilactobacillus (formerly Lactobacillus) mucosae CNPC007 that was incorporated into goat milk Greek-style yogurt was found after exposure to simulated digestion, allowing this strain to be considered a possible probiotic [30].
Probiotics that confer health benefits or pathogens that cause diseases are often strain specific. In some cases, a certain strain of a species may be a probiotic while another strain of the same species may be a pathogen. For example, E. coli Nissle 1917 is a probiotic [31], while E. coli O157:H7 and O104:H4 are pathogens. Bacillus sp. DU-106 from the Bacillus cereus group is a potential probiotic but other strains of B. cereus are pathogens [32]. Some strains of Clostridium butyricum can be used as a probiotic to produce bacteriocins, secrete butyrate, and inhibit pathogens while other strains are linked with botulism in infants and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm neonates [33]. Sometimes, probiotics can cause illness under certain conditions, so potential safety issues must be addressed as will be discussed in more detail later.
There are many types of probiotic bacteria. Bacteria and yeast with claimed probiotic or potential probiotic properties that have been incorporated into or isolated from yogurt or yogurt-related products are listed in Table 1 [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72]. A list of GRAS (generally recognized as safe) probiotics that mention incorporation into yogurt or related milk products is provided in Table 2. GRAS rules originated from the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (sections 201(s) and 409) and require successful safety evaluations for their intended use by experts in the field, unless it has been shown to be safe by common use before 1958 [73]. For example, Endres et al. [74] demonstrated that Bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086 is safe for human consumption.
The most common probiotics (other than the starter cultures) that are found in yogurt include species from the former Lactobacillus genus, the Bifidobacterium genus, and the former Bacillus genus. Recently, the Lactobacillus genus has been divided into 26 lineages with 23 novel genera [14] and these novel genera related to dairy foods have been reviewed by Oberg et al. [75]. A list of Bifidobacterium species can be found in the taxonomy browser [76]. The genus Bacillus has recently been reclassified as to only consisting of B. subtilis and B. cereus [77]. Bacillus coagulans has been renamed Weizmannia coagulans.
Next generation probiotics are potentially beneficial bacteria that are newly identified, non-conventional, and native to the gut microbiota and have possible therapeutic properties. Akkermansia muciniphila, Bacteroides species, certain Bifidobacterium species, Christensenella minuta, certain Clostridium species, Eggerthellaceae family, certain Enterococcus species, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, certain lactic acid bacteria, Parabacteroides goldsteinii, Pediococcus pentosaceus, Prevotella copri, and certain Streptococcus species including S. dentisani 7746 and 7747 are possible next generation probiotics [78]. Enterococcus mundtii QAUEM2808 was isolated from dahi (an artisanal fermented milk product) and has potential to be used as an adjunct culture for fermenting milk [79]. Weissella paramesenteroides MYPS5.1 is another potential probiotic strain that has been isolated from a dairy source [80]. Oscillospira could be developed as a next generation probiotic because of beneficial microbial traits and have future applications in food, nutraceuticals, and biopharmaceuticals [81].
Also, certain probiotics can be bioengineered. Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 can be metabolically engineered to enhance production of heparosan, which is an acidic polysaccharide used in heparin biosynthesis and drug delivery [82]. Further examples of bioengineered probiotics prepared for useful purposes are described below.
Probiotics can be used in a wide variety of human foods [83] and in animal nutrition and health [84]. In addition to cow milk, milk from goats [85], sheep [86], buffaloes [87], yaks [88], camels [89], horses [90], and donkeys [91] has been used to produce probiotic yogurt. Dairy sources constitute 80% of the more than 380 types of probiotic products available worldwide [92]. In addition to yogurt, some types of dairy-based foods that have incorporated probiotics within research studies include milk [93], infant formula [94], kefir [95], buttermilk [96], butter [96], sour cream [97], ice cream [98], cottage cheese [93], white pickled cheese [99], Cheddar cheese [100], and Mozzarella cheese [101]. The non-dairy products include various types of soy-based yogurt [102], wheat germ [103], dehydrated wheat/rice cereal matrices [104], fruit and vegetable matrices [105], fruit and vegetable juices [8], unfiltered and unpasteurized beer [106], coffee brews [107], fermented meat products [108], chocolate [109], non-fat whipping cream analogues [110], and a milk and maize African beverage [111]. Bacillus spores can be used in baking due to their high heat resistance. Permpoonpattana et al. [112] found just over a 1-log reduction in viability of Bacillus subtilis HU58 and PXN21 lyophilized spores after baking wholemeal biscuits at 235 °C for 8 min.

4. Gut Microbiome, Inflammation, and Health Benefits Provided by Probiotics

The human gut microbiome (also known as microbiota or microflora) consists of bacteria (predominantly obligate anaerobes), archaea, fungi, and protists and functions by metabolizing nutrients (by converting indigestible carbohydrates into short-chain fatty acids) for the host, maintaining the gut mucosal barrier, modifying the immune system, inhibiting pathogens, and even affecting brain activities. Most of these bacteria belong to the Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes phyla with fewer bacteria belonging to Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia phyla. Firmicutes bacteria are Gram-positive and are involved in short chain fatty acid synthesis and in hunger and satiety regulation [113]. Bacteroidetes bacteria are Gram-negative and are involved with enhancing immune reactions and inflammation. A loss of a balanced ratio between Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes leads to dysbiosis (lack of normal intestinal homeostasis), obesity (increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio), inflammatory bowel disease (decreased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio), and other diseases [113]. The Firmicutes phylum includes Clostridium (95% of this phylum), Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Enterococcus, and Ruminicoccus genera, and the Bacteroidetes phylum consists of Bacteroides and Prevotella genera [114]. Although early studies estimated the microorganism population as more than 100 trillion and number of human cells as around 10 trillion, more recent estimates state a ratio of 1.3 bacteria cells to each human cell [115]. The microbiome produces a wide variety of metabolites and can account for some of the variation in plasma metabolites between individuals [116]. The composition of the gut microbiome and gut-derived metabolites are associated with the occurrence of a wide variety of chronic diseases [117]. In addition, the effect that diet and exercise have on cognition is affected by the gut microbiome [118]. Furthermore, the microbiota was found to affect social behavior in zebrafish during early neurodevelopment [119]. However, the gut microflora can be affected by various factors including consumption of fermented dairy products [120,121,122].
While acute (high-grade but short-term) inflammation is needed for healing, trigger removal, and tissue repair, systemic chronic (low-grade but persistent) inflammation can lead to a wide variety of adverse health conditions including metabolic syndrome (hypertension, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia), type 2 diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, multiple cancer types, depression, neurodegenerative and autoimmune diseases, osteoporosis, and sarcopenia [123]. Probiotics, along with prebiotics, resistant starch, and resistant proteins, can decrease chronic low-grade inflammation by producing short-chain fatty acids (acetate, propionate, and butyrate), improving phagocytic activity, and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokine production to potentially promote healthy aging [124].
Probiotics provide many health benefits. Some of these health benefits provided by probiotics, postbiotics, and paraprobiotics (to be discussed later) with either mixed or strong evidence for effectiveness in clinical trials are summarized in Table 3 [125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225]. Because of the complexity involved in being consistent when evaluating the strength of the evidence for the effectiveness of probiotics in preventing or treating each of these adverse health conditions or providing the health benefits, no attempt was made for this evaluation. The efficacy of probiotics in controlling Crohn’s disease usually could not be shown [226]. More details about the health benefits provided by yogurt and probiotic fermented milks are provided by Sakandar and Zhang [227], and Hadjimbei et al. [228].
Different strains of bacteria provide their health benefits by different mechanisms [229], and knowledge of these mechanisms can help in probiotic selection and modification for effectively treating disease. Four main mechanisms by which probiotics confer health benefits include potential pathogen interference, barrier function improvement, immunomodulation, and neurotransmitter production [230]. Pathogen interference mechanisms include production of antimicrobial compounds including bacteriocins and defensins, competition with pathogens, inhibition of adherence of pathogens, and luminal pH reduction [229]. Probiotics such as L. rhamnosus can be bioengineered for an alternative method for pathogen inhibition within the field known as pathobiotechnology [231].
Gut microbiomes vary from person to person [114]. Individuals vary in the ability of which consumed probiotics, such as in a fermented milk product, are able to modify the composition of the autochthonous gut microflora, suggesting that a tailored diet may be needed for individuals that are on a beneficial microbial based therapy and have a resistant gut microbiota [232]. Veiga et al. [233] predicts that many people will have their genome sequenced in the future that will allow them to tailor specific probiotics (referred to as precision probiotics) to their unique human-microbiome symbiosis to optimize their microbiome-centered nutrition and preventative health care. Perhaps in the future, yogurt could be a carrier for these precision probiotics.

5. Probiotic Strains Used in Yogurt and Related Probiotic Milk Beverages and Their Health Benefits

One question a product developer working with yogurt needs to ask is whether to use a single strain probiotic or to use multiple strains for forming potential symbiotic relationships (similar to the relationship between S. thermophilus and L. bulgaricus) or for potential health benefits. Peng et al. [234] manufactured yogurt with incorporated L. casei Zhang, B. lactis V9, or their combination. The use of this combination stimulated the growth of B. lactis V9 compared to use of B. lactis V9 by itself, likely because of valine, leucine, and isoleucine biosynthesis. However, the use of this combination did not stimulate the growth of L. casei Zhang compared to the use of L. casei Zhang by itself. Furthermore, the use of this combination stimulated short-chain fatty acid production. In a similar type of experiment, Fan et al. [50] manufactured yogurt with incorporated Lacticaseibacillus casei CGMCC1.5956, Levilactobacillus brevis CGMCC1.5954, or their combination. They found improved probiotic growth, increased hardness and adhesiveness, less syneresis, and enhanced antioxidant capacity in the yogurt prepared with both probiotics. In another study, Fan et al. [235] found that use of binary probiotics (Lacticaseibacillus casei CGMCC1.5956 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum subsp. plantarum CGMCC1.5953) enhanced hardness, viscosity, and gumminess compared to use of these probiotics by themselves. McFarland [236] reviewed whether single strains or multiple strains are more effective in preventing and treating diseases. Although there were cases in which multiple strains were more effective than single strains in eradicating diseases, multi-strain mixtures were not usually more effective than single strain probiotics. However, Washburn et al. [237] reported that microbial gastrointestinal diversity was not significantly influenced in their study when healthy adults consumed Bifidobacterium infantis as a single probiotic species.
It has been debated as to whether or not the yogurt starter cultures, S. thermophilus and L. bulgaricus, should be considered as probiotic [238]. Obviously, if the yogurt is heat treated to kill the cultures after fermentation, then it is not probiotic yogurt. One would not consider yogurt starter cultures as probiotic if they were not acid and bile tolerant or if they did not survive within the intestinal tract [238]. In an early study, Cheplin and Rettger [239] were not able to implant Bacillus bulgaricus (now L. bulgaricus) into the human gastrointestinal tract. However, Mater et al. [240] and Elli et al. [241] found that L. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus can survive within the human gastrointestinal tract. Martinović et al. [242] reviewed whether or not S. thermophilus survives within the gastrointestinal tract and concluded that most studies did not perform taxonomic studies with sufficient accuracy for distinguishing S. thermophilus from S. salivarius to determine if S. thermophilus can be recovered. Uriot et al. [243] supported the idea that certain strains of S. thermophilus be considered as probiotic, and Guarner et al. [244] likewise concluded that both S. thermophilus and L. bulgaricus should be considered as probiotic. Popović et al. [143] showed that S. thermophilus BGKMJ1-36 and L. bulgaricus BGVLJI-21 can function as yogurt starter cultures and possess probiotic properties by modulating gut autophagy and improving the gut epithelial barrier. Recently, Taj et al. [245] found that certain exopolysaccharide producing strains (RIRT2, RIH4, and RIY) of S. thermophilus fulfill the basic criteria to be considered as probiotics. In this paper, the emphasis is on yogurt that has probiotic cultures in addition to S. thermophilus and L. bulgaricus.
Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM (North Carolina Food Microbiology) (ATCC 700396) has been available since 1972 and is GRAS (GRN Number 357). The complete genomic sequence has been published by Altermann et al. [246]. This strain is of human origin and was isolated and characterized by Gilliland et al. [247]. This probiotic was reviewed by Sanders and Klaenhammer [248]. Health benefits provided by L. acidophilus NCFM include antimicrobial activity against foodborne pathogens, in vitro evidence for adherence to human cells, possible ability to assimilate cholesterol from lab growth media, ability to survive within the gastrointestinal tract and to be isolated in human feces, possess active lactase to possibly assist with lactose digestion, beneficially effect colonization in the small bowel, decreasing potentially harmful microbial activities related to cancer development in the intestine, improve immune response when combined with other yogurt cultures to oral antigens, potentially controlling urogenital infections in women, potentially reducing incidence of diarrhea when combined with other probiotics, and protecting against systemic infections [248].
Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5 provides many health benefits and has been incorporated into food and dietary supplements since 1979 [249]. This strain is frequently investigated with Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 which will be discussed below. When combining L. acidophilus LA-5 with B. animalis subsp. lactis BB-12, improved suppression of Helicobacter pylori infections [250], improved relief from chronic constipation [251], reduced symptoms and inflammation from ulcerative colitis [252], better recovery to colonic surgery as part of an optimization package [253], improved glycemic control and antioxidant status in patients with Type 2 diabetes [254,255], and reduced oxidative stress [256] have been reported. L. acidophilus LA-5, B. animalis subsp. lactis BB-12, and L. casei TMC incorporated into milk reduced total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in mild hypercholesterolemic study volunteers [257]. L. acidophilus LA-5 produces lactacin B bacteriocin (peptides that inhibit certain other types of bacteria within the same environment) in the presence of yogurt starter cultures [258]. Furthermore, L. acidophilus LA-5 can produce conjugated linoleic acid in supplemented cheese whey [259] and attenuate obesity [260].
Lactobacillus helveticus has been used as a probiotic in yogurt. Zhou et al. [39] manufactured yogurt using L. helveticus H9 as an adjunct starter culture and found shortened fermentation time, increased richness of volatile flavor compounds, production of fermented milk antihypertensive peptides Val-Pro-Pro and Ile-Pro-Pro, but lower sensory scores compared to their control yogurt. Kajimoto et al. [261] manufactured a liquid yogurt that contains lactotripeptides and the starters L. helveticus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and found that consumption of this product decreased systolic and diastolic blood pressure significantly more than the placebo group in mild hypertensive subjects in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Yamamura et al. [262] reported that milk fermented with L. helveticus strain CM4 may improve sleep in healthy elderly Japanese subjects.
Lacticaseibacillus casei (formerly Lactobacillus casei) DN-114001 (L. casei strain CNCM I-1518 or L. casei Immunitas®) is used in the probiotic yogurt-like drink DanActive (Actimel) and has been patented [263]. L. casei DN-114001 was effective in increasing fecal Bifidobacterium counts but decreasing fecal Clostridium counts in children [264] and may be effective in reducing atopic dermatitis in children [264,265]. Agarwal et al. [266] reported that L. casei DN-114001 was effective in controlling diarrhea in people from developing countries and using L. casei DN-114001 as a starter for producing dahi was also effective. Guillemard et al. [267] found a reduced average and cumulative duration of common infectious diseases and reduced episodes and cumulative durations of upper respiratory tract infections and rhinopharyngitis in the free-living elderly upon consumption of a fermented dairy product containing L. casei DN-114001. Marcos et al. [268] studied anxiety levels and immune responses of academically-stressed university students who consumed fermented milk containing L. casei DN-114001 versus a control. Although there was no significant difference in treatment effect in anxiety, they found that consumption of this fermented drink modified the number of lymphocytes and CD56 cells in the stressed students [268].
Lacticaseibacillus paracasei (formerly Lactobacillus casei) Shirota strain is used in a fermented milk drink called Yakult® and is GRAS (GRN Number 429). This product was launched in 1935 and is fermented by this probiotic until a titratable acidity of 2% is reached [269]. The resulting curd is broken, sweetened and flavored, homogenized at 15 MPa, and diluted with water before being packaged into 65-mL plastic bottles. This strain is indigenous in the human intestinal tract [270]. Yasuda et al. [271] analyzed genes in L. casei strain Shirota (YIT 9029) related to synthesis of polysaccharides associated with the cell wall involved in regulating host immunity based on their unpublished in-house data of the complete genome sequence of this probiotic. Kato-Kataoka et al. [272] reported that medical students who daily consumed fermented milk containing L. casei strain Shirota displayed fewer physical symptoms when exposed to stressful academic examinations.
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (Gorbach and Goldin) (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Lactobacillus acidophilus GG and also called LGG) (ATCC accession number 53103) (GRN Numbers 845 and 1013) is a widely studied probiotic. It has been patented [273,274] and its complete genome sequence has been published [275]. Capurso [276] reviewed the effect of L. rhamnosus GG on gastrointestinal infections and diarrhea, antibiotic and Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, respiratory tract infections, allergy, cardiovascular diseases, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, cystic fibrosis, cancer, exercise physiology, and the elderly. Szajewska and Hojsak [277] concluded that the symptoms of acute gastroenteritis can be managed and antibiotic-associated diarrhea can be prevented upon administering L. rhamnosus GG to toddlers and older children.
Limosilactobacillus (formerly Lactobacillus) reuteri DSM 17,938 is GRAS (GRN Number 254), and its use in treating various pediatric gastrointestinal disorders has been recently reviewed [278]. This species inhibits pathogen growth by secreting reuterin and other substances and restores homeostasis by interacting with intestinal microbiota and mucosa. Furthermore, this species can increase the pain threshold and gastrointestinal motility. The duration of acute diarrhea and hospitalization for acute gastroenteritis can be decreased. Likewise, antibiotic-associated side effects from treating Helicobacter pylori infections can also be decreased with this species [278].
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly L.actobacillus plantarum) can successfully be used in producing probiotic yogurt. Li et al. [279] added various strains of L. plantarum to produce yogurt. They found that milk as a medium is appropriate as a carrier for L. plantarum because of their survival both during fermentation and storage. No negative sensory quality effects were found. Strain IMAU 70,095 of L. plantarum was found to be the most suitable strain for yogurt [279]. L. plantarum CCFM47 and CCFM232, L. acidophilus CCFM6, and L. rhamnosus GG were able to inhibit α-glucosidase and survive at rates up to 60% in simulated gastrointestinal juices [280]. Furthermore, viability of L. plantarum CCFM47 and L. acidophilus CCFM6 in yogurt was improved when yogurt was supplemented with soybean oligosaccharides, indicating that this type of yogurt would be expected to have antihyperglycemic properties.
Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 is a probiotic that is GRAS (GRN Number 856). It is commonly studied with L. acidophilus LA-5. Garrigues et al. [281] published the complete genome sequence of B. animalis subsp. lactis BB-12. This microorganism can survive within the gastrointestinal tract with excellent resistance to acid and bile and supports a healthy gastrointestinal microbiota. Also, it improves bowel function, protects against diarrhea in infants and children, and reduces antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Additionally, this microorganism provides protection against respiratory tract infections [282]. A potential anti-inflammatory effect was found in healthy adults upon consumption of yogurt with incorporated B. animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 [283].
Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis HN019 has been patented (US patent 6379663) [284] and is GRAS (GRN Number 445). Its complete genome sequence has been described in Morovic et al. [285]. Magro et al. [286] found that the colonic transit time for constipated patients consuming yogurt containing B. lactis HN019, L. acidophilus NCFM, and polydextrose was shortened compared to control yogurt. Likewise, Miller et al. [287] analyzed 15 clinical trials representing 675 subjects for determining the effectiveness of various probiotics in reducing intestinal transit times and found that B. animalis subsp. lactis HN019 and Bifidobacterium animalis DN-173 010 were the most effective probiotic strains. Gut health benefits provided by B. animalis subsp. lactis HN019 have been reviewed by Cheng et al. [288].
Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis DN-173 010/CNCM I-2494 is a probiotic that is added to various forms of the Activia brand of yogurt and drinks (Groupe Danone) that was launched in France in 1987 for relieving minor digestive discomfort. Studies have shown that consumption of fermented milk containing B. animalis DN-173 010 increased stool frequency for constipated children [289], improved health-related quality of life with increased stool frequency (in a subgroup of subjects with fewer than three bowel movements per week) and with decreased bloating in constipated adult subjects with irritable bowel syndrome [290], and decreased gut transit times in elderly people [291]. Reducing gastrointestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, and/or Crohn’s Disease or preventing or treating irritable bowel syndrome by having a subject consume B. animalis or Activia® have been patented (US patent 8,685,388 B2) [292].
Weizmannia coagulans (formerly Bacillus coagulans) and Bacillus subtilis are probiotics that can be used in yogurt. Ma et al. [57] found that W. (B.) coagulans-70 was a desirable strain when used as an adjunct starter culture due to its high count in yogurt during fermentation and storage, the increased in yogurt hardness and viscosity during storage, and high sensory evaluation scores of the yogurt samples. W. (B.) coagulans GBI-30, 6086 (BC30TM) has been patented [293] and has FDA GRAS status (GRN Numbers 399 and 670). W. (B.) coagulans was originally called Lactobacillus sporogenes, but this nomenclature is not correct [294] since lactobacilli do not form spores. Bacillus subtilis can be successfully added to yogurt, and peptides that are present in this yogurt have a high antioxidant potential and can improve shelf-life [295].

6. Prebiotics, Synbiotics, Paraprobiotics, Postbiotics, and Psychobiotics

The definition of prebiotic has evolved over time. Gibson and Roberfroid [296] defined prebiotic as “non-digestible food ingredients that beneficially affects the host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or activity of one or a limited number of bacterial species already resident in the colon”. More recently, the definition of prebiotic has been modified to “a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit” [297]. Examples of prebiotics include inulin, fructo-oligosaccharides, galacto-oligosaccharides, isomalto-oligosaccharides, human milk oligosaccharides, xylo-oligosaccharides, xylan, lactulose, oat fiber (β-glucan), pectin, guar gum, resistant starch, stachyose, select polyphenols, bacteriophage, omega-3 fatty acids, and yeast hydrolysate [219,298,299]. Prebiotics are discussed in detail by Gibson and Roberfroid [300].
Synbiotics were defined by a panel from the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics as “a mixture comprising live microorganisms and substrate(s) selectively utilized by host microorganisms that confers a health benefit on the host” [301]. Therefore, the proper type of prebiotic must be used with a given probiotic. Stronger health benefits occur when a product contains synbiotics rather than either a probiotic or prebiotic alone [302]. Dairy products incorporating synbiotics in research studies include yogurt and a yogurt-based drink, fermented skim milk, cheeses, ice cream, and infant formula. Some of the probiotics and prebiotics that have been incorporated into synbiotic yogurt are listed in Table 4. For non-dairy based products, this list includes bread buns, chocolate, candy, mousse, Andean blackberry slices, soybean beverage, fermented soy food, cereal mix, traditional Indian dry snack, dry malted drink, and salad dressing [302].
Paraprobiotics (ghost probiotics) are “non-viable microbial cells (intact or broken) or crude cell extracts (i.e., with complex chemical composition), which, when administered (orally or topically) in adequate amounts, confer a benefit on the human or animal consumer” [328]. A wide variety of probiotics can be used for paraprobiotic production [328,329]. Techniques for inactivating probiotics to produce paraprobiotics include the use of irradiation, high pressures, sonication and high-intensity ultrasound, ultraviolet rays, ohmic heating, pulsed electric field, supercritical carbon dioxide, drying, pH changes, and thermal treatments [329,330]. Paraprobiotics can be produced by ohmic heating at electric field magnitudes of 8 V/cm for inactivating probiotic cultures (Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5, Lacticaseibacillus casei 01 and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Bb-12) [331]. However, ohmic heating performed at sub-lethal conditions can increase cellular permeability and improve nutrient absorption leading to faster cellular growth [332]. High-intensity ultrasound can also be used to inactivate probiotics for generating paraprobiotics by adjusting process parameters resulting in a high level of sonoporation within the cell, leakage of cellular content, and fluctuation of the cell membrane lipid bilayer [330]. Health benefits provided by the use of paraprobiotics include immunomodulation, pathogen inhibition, intestinal microbiota modulation, intestinal injury recovery, reduction of bacterial translocation and preservation of the intestinal barrier, treatment of diarrhea, inflammation modulation, reduction of lactose intolerance, cholesterol reduction, respiratory disease reduction, treatment of alcohol-induced liver diseases, cancer growth inhibition, atopic dermatitis treatment, visceral pain response modulation, colitis treatment, suppression of certain age related diseases, and dental caries inhibition [329].
Paraprobiotics have been incorporated into yogurt. Parvarei et al. [333,334,335] incorporated heat-killed or viable L. acidophilus ATCC SD 5221 or heat-killed or viable B. lactis BB-12 into yogurt either before or after fermentation and compared the properties to a control yogurt. Viability of starter cultures was increased with the addition of paraprobiotics [333]. They typically found less syneresis and greater water holding capacity for yogurts containing the paraprobiotics added before fermentation compared to the remaining yogurts due to the presence of exopolysaccharides derived from the inactivated cells [333]. There were pores and void spaces within the microstructure of these yogurts containing paraprobiotics added before fermentation [334]. Yogurts incorporating heat-killed B. lactis BB-12 into yogurt before fermentation had the highest flavor and mouthfeel sensory scores [335].
Postbiotics have been defined by a panel from the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics as a “preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host” [336]. Guimarães et al. [330] suggested that postbiotics can be produced by high-intensity ultrasound. Advantages of using postbiotics are their inability to cause infections because they are not alive and their long shelf-life. Depommier et al. [337] administered pasteurized (killed) Akkermansia muciniphila to individuals who were overweight or obese with insulin resistance and found improved insulin sensitivity but reduced insulinemia and plasma total cholesterol. Darwish et al. [338] produced a functional yogurt incorporating the postbiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 and Cape gooseberry, and increased the antimicrobial, antitumor, and antioxidant activities and total phenolic content of the yogurt.
Zendeboodi et al. [339] proposed a new classification of probiotics as true probiotics meaning viable and active, pseudoprobiotics meaning viable and inactive either in the form of vegetative cell or spore, and ghost probiotics meaning nonviable cell either in the form of intact or ruptured cells.
Psychobiotics have been defined as “a live organism that, when ingested in adequate amounts, produces a health benefit in patients suffering from psychiatric illness” [340]. There is bilateral communication between the gut microbes and the brain, and this association is known as the gut–brain–microbiota axis. Although gut dysbiosis (an imbalance of the microorganisms in the gastrointestinal tract as discussed earlier) can lead to altered brain function, mental illness (including major depressive disorder and schizophrenia), and neurological decline (such as Alzheimer’s disease) in old age [341], certain probiotics may provide positive mental health effects. These probiotics can produce neuroactive substances (including gamma-aminobutyric acid and serotonin) that affect the brain–gut axis and provide an antidepressant effect [340]. There are many fermented food and beverage applications for these potential psychobiotic strains as summarized by Toro-Barbosa et al. [342]. Benton et al. [222] supplied subjects with Yakult (a milk drink containing the probiotic L. casei (now L. paracasei) Shirota) and found improvements in the mood of subjects with initially poor moods after they consumed this product. In another study in which subjects consumed L. casei (now L. paracasei) Shirota, Rao et al. [220] found reduced anxiety among subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome consuming the probiotic compared to the placebo. Furthermore, these researchers found that the probiotic-consuming subjects had a greater increase in Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria in their feces compared to the placebo-controlled subjects.

7. Probiotic Yogurt Products Currently Available in the Market

Many brands of probiotic yogurt with varying claims can be found on the market. Use of only A2 milk for making yogurt has been claimed. Some brands claim to be made from milk from grass-fed cows that optimize the ratio of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 fatty acids and have enhanced conjugated linoleic acids. Other brands claim that the milk used to produce the yogurt is organic or comes from cows not treated with rBST. Fat contents of yogurt of up to 10% have been reported. A reduction of 90% lactose compared to regular yogurt has also been claimed. Honey or chia seed can be found in certain types of commercial yogurt. High protein yogurt is available on the market. Low and slow heating has been declared for one type of yogurt. Some manufacturers do not homogenize their milk used to make their yogurt. A wide variety of probiotics are used in commercial yogurt. Bacillus coagulans, which becomes active upon reconstitution with water, is used in a brand of frozen yogurt. One yogurt culture manufacturer claims that over 300 probiotic strains are present in their product. A shelf-life of 11 weeks has been claimed for a yogurt made with L. bulgaricus G-LB-44, a powerful pathogen inhibitor. Types of commercial probiotic yogurt include conventional spoonable yogurt, Greek yogurt, Bulgarian yogurt, Balkan yogurt, and frozen yogurt. Yogurts containing postbiotics are also on the market.

8. Various Forms of Yogurt

There are many different types of yogurt in addition to spoonable yogurt. Baker [343] has patented a procedure for producing a low calorie, low-fat fruit and L. acidophilus -containing yogurt that has the appearance, texture, and taste similar to a conventional fruit-containing yogurt. Pachekrepapol et al. [344] used β-galactosidase enzyme to hydrolyze the lactose found in milk to produce a lactose free, probiotic yogurt with incorporated fructooligosaccharides. Drinkable yogurt may contain a wide variety of probiotic strains including L. reuteri WHH1689 [345], L. gasseri [346], L. rhamnosus HN001 [347], or L. plantarum DSM 20205 and P. acidilactici DSM 20238 [348] or a combination of probiotics (Bifidobacterium lactis Bb-12 and Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5) and prebiotics (soluble corn fiber, polydextrose, and chicory inulin) [349]. A shelf-stable yogurt can be produced by UHT sterilizing milk with a lactose content reduced to about 1% to 1.5%, cooling this product, adding lactic acid bacteria including probiotics, aseptically packaging the product into a container, and storing it under suitable conditions to allow 1 × 107 cfu/g to 3 × 109 cfu/g live bacteria to form in the yogurt, resulting in a pH lower than 4.7 [350]. A method for producing high-protein Greek yogurt by concentrating the skim milk by ultrafiltration, combining this concentrated skim milk with other milk fractions to form the yogurt base, fermenting the resulting yogurt base with a yogurt culture and probiotics, and concentrating the fermented product with a ceramic membrane system has been patented [351]. Imer [352] described a process in a patent for producing frozen yogurt by freezing a fermented yogurt mix that may include L. acidophilus, L. casei, L. rhamnosus, and Bifidobacterium and incorporating air to an ideal overrun between 30% and 60%. A method of producing Greek frozen yogurt from fermented lactose-reduced skim milk and made without straining, but possibly containing various probiotics, has been described by Bunce and Dave [353]. Natural yogurt that is produced by fermentation by either L. bulgaricus or L. acidophilus may be dried by various techniques to produce an instant, dry powdered yogurt composition [354]. This composition has a long shelf-life without refrigeration and it can be reconstituted into a yogurt meal or drink. Another patent describes freeze-dried, aerated yogurt that could incorporate prebiotics and probiotics and is readily dissolvable to reduce choking hazard risks [355].

9. Use of Probiotic Yogurt as an Ingredient

Probiotic yogurt can be used as an ingredient in the production of other products. Bite sized refrigerated yogurt that can be eaten using fingers can be prepared by coating frozen yogurt portions (possibly containing probiotics) with two layers of fat-based coating [356]. The second layer of this fat coating is applied before allowing the frozen yogurt to thaw, and this second layer may contain particulate inclusions [356]. A snack bar coated with a yogurt containing probiotics (L. acidophilus or B. lactis or both) and incorporating waxy grains held together by an inulin binder has been patented [357]. A shelf-stable fruit snack that contains an outer layer that could consist of yogurt containing probiotic cultures has been patented [358]. Gutknecht and Ovitt [359] patented low-fat yogurt cheese consisting of 15% to 75% cream cheese, 10% to 40% yogurt incorporating L. acidophilus, Bifidobacterium, or L. paracasei subsp. casei in addition to yogurt starter cultures, and 15% to 45% milk protein. Freeze dried yogurt that may contain probiotic cultures is an ingredient in a dry mix food product that also contains other food ingredients (whole grain, fruits, nuts, granola, etc.), and this dry mix can be hydrated to form a thick texture similar to yogurt within 3 min [360]. A shelf-stable light and crunchy yogurt crisp, a snack food, is made from a viscoelastic dough that contains dehydrated yogurt and may contain probiotics, either in the spore form or microencapsulated form [361].

10. Useful Functional Ingredients in Probiotic Yogurt

Many ingredients have successfully been added to probiotic yogurt. Some of these useful functional ingredients are listed in Table 5. These functional ingredients include grains, seeds, flours, fibers, fruits, vegetables, a berry, a nut, juices, spices, essential oils, bee products, and a cyanobacterium.

11. Safety of Yogurt

Although yogurt is generally a safe product because of the added starters added to, food poisoning outbreaks related to yogurt consumption have occurred as summarized by Aryana and Olson [387]. Furthermore, Aziz et al. [388] found pathogens (including Streptococcus equinus, Escherichia fergusonii, Ralstonia pickettii, and Delftia tsuruhatensis) in probiotic yogurt in Pakistan. Gram-negative psychrotrophic bacteria, yeast, and mold contamination must be avoided in yogurt and is more common in traditionally manufactured yogurt than in industrially manufactured yogurt [389]. Conversely, Montaseri et al. [390] found that probiotic yogurt can lower aflatoxin M1 during storage.
The probiotics themselves must also be evaluated for their safety. Although lactobacilli are not generally pathogenic [391], Sims [392] has reported a lactobacillus (an oral strain of L. casei var. rhamnosus) that was lethal to mice and rats. Bifidobacteria, with the exception of the pathogenic Bifidobacterium dentium, have only rarely been found to be involved with certain dental and other infections [393]. Potential risk factors for consuming probiotics include systemic infections arising from bacterial translocation, antimicrobial resistance gene transfer to pathogenic bacteria, divergent immune stimulation in susceptible groups, and undesirable metabolic activities [394].
Although probiotics are frequently associated with positive health outcomes, there have been studies in certain populations in which subjects in the probiotic group had worse outcomes than subjects in the placebo group. Callaway et al. [395] found higher percent of cases of gestational diabetes mellitus (18.4% versus 12.3%, (p = 0.10)), higher oral glucose tolerance test results (79.3 mg/dL versus 77.5 mg/dL (p = 0.049)), and higher incidences of preeclampsia (9.2% versus 4.9% (p = 0.09)) in overweight and obese pregnant women who took capsules or sachets of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12. In the PROPATRIA (Probiotics in Pancreatitis Trial) study (a trial attempting to reduce infectious complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis by supplying them with a multi-species probiotic preparation (freeze-dried Ecologic 641) delivered enterally), 16% (24 of 152) of patients died in the treatment (probiotic) group versus 6% (9 of 144) of the patients who died in the placebo group [396]. These authors thought that this high mortality rate for the treatment group was due to a lethal combination of pancreatic enzymes (mainly proteolytic) and probiotic therapy and resulting in the production of excessively high levels of lactic acid. They recommended that researchers immediately start probiotic therapy after the initial onset of disease, limit fermentable carbohydrate supply, prevent bacterial overgrowth of the microflora within the patient, and dramatically increase the probiotic bacterial dose [396]. Therefore, extra care must be taken when administering probiotics to critically ill patients or other susceptible populations.

12. Survival of Probiotics in Yogurt

Several studies have examined survival of probiotics in yogurt. Gilliland and Speck [397] reported that L. acidophilus does not survive well in yogurt during storage, probably because of hydrogen peroxide produced by L. bulgaricus. Ng et al. [398] concluded that the reason that counts of some strains of L. acidophilus decrease in the presence of L. bulgaricus is not due to the low pH, as these strains of L. acidophilus can survive in a similar pH yogurt that was produced by glucono-delta-lactone. (Glucono-delta-lactone gradually releases gluconic acid at a comparable rate to acids produced by starter cultures.) Similar to Gilliland and Speck [397], Ng et al. [398] also suggested that this inhibition of some strains of L. acidophilus may have been caused by high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide produced by L. bulgaricus. Shah et al. [399] obtained five brands of commercial probiotic yogurt and determined how counts of L. acidophilus and B. bifidum changed over 5 weeks of refrigerated storage. Initial viable L. acidophilus counts were in the range of 107 to 108 cfu/g for three of the brands, around 106 cfu/g for another brand, and around 104 cfu/g for the final brand, and the three brands with the highest counts maintained their counts better than the two brands with lower initial counts. Initial viable B. bifidum counts were around 107 cfu/g for two brands and between 103 to 104 cfu/g for the remaining three brands, and all of these counts decreased during storage, especially during the latter stages [399]. Mani-López et al. [400] reported that L. acidophilus maintained better viability than L. reuteri and L. casei during storage of yogurt and fermented milk containing S. thermophilus. Hekmat et al. [401] used Lactobacillus reuteri (now Limosilactobacillus reuteri) RC-14 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus (now Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus) GR-1 in the preparation of yogurt and found that L. rhamnosus GR-1 was surviving better than L. reuteri RC-14. For Limosilactobacillus mucosae CNPC007 incorporated into goat milk Greek-style yogurt, de Morais et al. [30] reported that counts decreased from 9.53 log cfu/g at 1 day of storage to 8.96 log cfu/g at day 28.
Some factors may affect survival of probiotics in yogurt during storage. Kailasapathy et al. [402] manufactured fruit yogurts containing L. acidophilus and B. animalis ssp. lactis and found that the fruit preparation usually did not decrease viability of these probiotics during storage compared to their plain yogurt controls. Ferdousi et al. [403] found faster declines of viable counts of various types of probiotics in yogurt stored at 20 °C compared to 5 °C, and L. rhamnosus HN001 maintained better viability than B. animalis subsp. lactis BB-12).
Viability of probiotics in frozen yogurt has been reported in the literature. Hekmat and McMahon [404] manufactured frozen yogurt by fermenting an ice cream mix with L. acidophilus and B. bifidum before freezing and found decreases in counts from 1.5 × 108 cfu/mL to 4 × 106 cfu/mL for L. acidophilus and from 2.5 × 108 cfu/mL to 1 × 107 cfu/mL for B. bifidum during 17 weeks of frozen storage at −29 °C. Davidson et al. [405] manufactured frozen yogurt containing L. acidophilus and B. longum and found little to no change in culture survival during storage at −20 °C for 11 weeks. Atallah et al. [406] manufactured frozen yogurt using either sucrose or sugar replacements as the sweetener and found decreases in B. bifidum counts from about 7.6 log cfu per gram at 1 day of storage to about 6.2 to 6.3 log cfu per gram at 60 days of frozen storage.
Many steps can be taken to improve viability of probiotics in yogurt or frozen yogurt during storage. Although L. acidophilus counts in yogurt can be raised by increasing its inoculation level during manufacture to a certain extent, L. acidophilus inoculation levels that are excessively high lowered the counts during storage, resulting in a lower quality of yogurt including reduced apparent viscosity and sensory scores but increased syneresis compared to yogurts produced with lower inoculation levels of L. acidophilus [35]. A method has been patented [407] for enhancing growth and viability of L. acidophilus in yogurt by inoculating this microorganism into a base that includes heat treated and cooled milk and possibly other ingredients including fiber) and then growing this microorganism during incubation. S. thermophilus and L. bulgaricus are then inoculated into this yogurt mix containing the L. acidophilus culture for further incubation to form a yogurt with significantly higher counts of L. acidophilus but typical counts of S. thermophilus and L. bulgaricus [407]. Incorporating increasing concentrations of ascorbic acid of up to 250 mg/kg of probiotic yogurt led to a slower decrease in L. acidophilus counts during storage [408]. The viability of bifidobacteria was improved by the addition of cysteine, whey protein concentrate, acid casein hydrolysates, and tryptone, but not by the addition of dried whey [409]. Costa et al. [410] reported that incorporating oligofructose or polydextrose to a probiotic yogurt containing L. casei improved probiotic survival and texture but lowered flavor acceptance. Sarwar et al. [71] manufactured synbiotic yogurt incorporating 0.5% Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 probiotic yeast and up to 2% inulin and found a slower decrease in viability of S. boulardii during 4 weeks of refrigerated storage with yogurts containing increasing inulin concentrations. Muzammil et al. [411] manufactured frozen yogurt supplemented with inulin and glycerol and found smaller decreases in viability of L. acidophilus and B. lactis in frozen yogurt when supplemented with up to 6% inulin or 4% glycerol after 12 weeks of storage. Although presence of oxygen (oxidative stress) is undesirable in yogurt (toxic to some cells, leads to production of hydrogen peroxide by certain strains, and production of free radicals from food component oxidation), addition of glucose oxidase for oxygen removal maintained probiotic culture viability and lactic and acetic acid levels but increased diacetyl, acetaldehyde, conjugated linoleic acid, and polyunsaturated fatty acid levels in yogurt in the study of Batista et al. [412].
Microencapsulation is a process in which at least one potentially sensitive substance becomes entrapped by a coating material for its protection and has recently been reviewed by Gullo and Zotta [413]. Pour et al. [414] prepared yogurt incorporating either free or encapsulated probiotics (L. rhamnosus and L. plantarum) and found increased survival with probiotics encapsulated in a multi-layer emulsion (decrease of 7.59–7.65 log cfu/mL at 1 day of storage to 7.45–7.55 log cfu/mL at 21 days of storage) versus free probiotics (7.59–7.71 log cfu/mL to 6.82–6.93 log cfu/mL for the same times). Ajlouni et al. [415] encapsulated L. acidophilus LA-5 and B. lactis BB-12 and added these to yogurt either before or after yogurt fermentation. Although the encapsulated probiotic count decreased in yogurt stored for 21 days under refrigeration regardless if added before or after fermentation, the probiotic count increased after 24 h of in-vitro colonic fermentation, even after 21 days of storage. These results indicated that the encapsulated probiotics would be more bioaccessible in the colon. Incorporation of encapsulated probiotics before fermentation resulted in higher counts than incorporation after fermentation [415]. Dimitrellou et al. [41] freeze-dried Lactobacillus casei ATCC 393 on casein and apple pieces to be used as an adjunct culture for producing yogurt and found a lower pH, higher titratable acidity, less syneresis, altered concentration of key volatile compounds, and improved sensory properties compared to yogurts produced traditionally. They also reported detection of greater than 107 log cfu per gram of this probiotic after 28 days of storage.
Ultrasound and packaging can be used to improve probiotic viability. The fermentation time during yogurt manufacturing was reduced by 30 min when applying sonication after inoculation [416]. Use of glass bottles and thicker plastic packaging can reduce oxygen permeability into yogurt and better maintain probiotic survival [417].
Probiotics must survive not only during storage throughout its shelf-life, it must also survive within the body for it to confer health benefits to its host. These probiotics must survive the acidic conditions within the stomach and bile salts in the intestinal tract. In vitro tests performed in the lab can be performed to determine if the probiotic can survive in broth adjusted to a low pH (typically pH 2) in the acid tolerance test and in broth to which a bile salt (oxgall) has been added in the bile tolerance test. Acid and bile tolerance of probiotics from dairy and nondairy products was recently reviewed by Ayyash et al. [418].

13. Properties of Probiotic Yogurt

Some research projects have investigated effects of probiotic incorporation on physicochemical and sensory properties of probiotic yogurts. Cui et al. [419] produced cow milk yogurt with yogurt starter cultures alone and with yogurt starter cultures combined with probiotics (Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12, L. acidophilus La-5, and L. rhamnosus GG) and found probiotic supplementation decreased time to reach pH 4.5 and pH obtained during storage but increased initial firmness. However, syneresis, color, and microstructure were not affected by probiotic supplementation. Soni et al. [420] prepared yogurt by incorporating individual probiotics (L. acidophilus, L. casei, L. plantarum, and B. bifidum) and certain combinations of these probiotics, and found that the incorporated probiotics affected various nutritional, physicochemical, organoleptic, and probiotic properties. Additionally, these authors found that using a combination of probiotics resulted in improved texture and often better probiotic potential. He et al. [421] reported that a higher viscosity resulting from probiotic addition is due to increased total solids content and increased packing of the three-dimensional casein cluster network arising from exopolysaccharide production. Similarly, de Morais et al. [30] reported a higher viscosity for their probiotic goat milk Greek-style yogurt than for their control yogurt, probably arising from increased exopolysaccharide production by their Limosilactobacillus mucosae adjunct culture.
Mixed results have been reported for the effects of probiotic incorporation into yogurt on sensory properties. Some studies found that addition of probiotics to fermented milk or yogurt does not significantly affect sensory properties [400,422,423]. However, Hussain et al. [424] purchased probiotic and natural yogurt in the UK and found that the probiotic yogurt was organoleptically favored over the natural yogurt. Likewise, the probiotic goat milk Greek-style yogurt in the de Morais et al. [30] study received higher sensory scores for color, flavor, texture (at 28 days), and overall acceptance than their control yogurt.

14. Greek Yogurt Acid Whey

Production of Greek yogurt leaves acid whey as a by-product. Although this Greek yogurt acid whey is commonly spread on fields for use as a fertilizer or fed to livestock, it does have potential uses in foods. Smith et al. [425] neutralized this Greek yogurt acid whey and claimed that it can be incorporated into bakery, beverage, snack, confectionery, soup, dry meal, dairy, and cereal products. Food uses for Greek yogurt acid whey can include utilization in ranch dressing [426], in pancake and pizza crust [427], and milk protein concentrate-based extruded snack product [428]. Rivera Flores et al. [429] prepared a beverage by fermenting Greek-style yogurt acid whey using pure cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Kluyveromyces marxianus, Brettanomyces claussenii, or Brettanomyces bruxellensis and using a yeast nitrogen base supplemented with lactose, glucose, or a 1:1 mixture of glucose and galactose under aerobic conditions. For the glucose and galactose mixture for B. clausenii, all of the glucose was consumed with acetic acid production, but galactose was not utilized, conferring this beverage with prebiotic properties. Dufrene et al. [430] manufactured a pineapple-flavored probiotic acid whey drink incorporating L. acidophilus and found some survival of L. acidophilus after 4 weeks of storage.

15. Conclusions

A wide range of probiotic strains can be added to yogurt and yogurt-like products. Many different innovations and unique selling points can be found for probiotic yogurt already on the market. There are many different forms of probiotic yogurt (spoonable, drinkable, concentrated (Greek), dried, low lactose, shelf-stable, frozen), and probiotic yogurt may be used as an ingredient, including as a coating or as a snack, in many other types of foods. Many research papers have described useful functional ingredients that have been added to probiotic yogurt. It is important to maintain viability of these probiotics during their shelf-life and within the body for the consumer to obtain the health benefits, and many factors and technologies can be used to improve their probiotic counts and their shelf-life. As with any type of food product, ensuring food safety is critical, especially for critically ill patients and other susceptible populations. Even the acid whey by-product from Greek yogurt manufacturing can be used as an ingredient in other food products or incorporated with probiotics to form a probiotic by-product beverage. The wide variety of available probiotics, methods for improving probiotic viability, and forms and uses of probiotic yogurt present many exciting opportunities for new product development to improve sales and consumer health.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, D.W.O.; Writing—review and editing, D.W.O. and K.J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Available online: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-131/subpart-B/section-131.200 (accessed on 24 August 2022).
  2. Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/23/2022-05804/milk-and-cream-petition-for-an-administrative-stay-of-action-definitions-and-standards-of-identity (accessed on 24 August 2022).
  3. Statista. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/279527/us-yogurt-sales/ (accessed on 28 August 2022).
  4. Statista. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/2351/greek-yogurt/#topicHeader__wrapper (accessed on 28 August 2022).
  5. Statista. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/255016/frozen-yogurt-production-in-the-us (accessed on 28 August 2022).
  6. Statista. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/252980/cagr-of-probiotic-and-non-probiotic-yoghurt-in-the-us/ (accessed on 28 August 2022).
  7. Decker, K.J. Making the Connection: Probiotics Benefits Extend Beyond the Gut. Nutr. Outlook 2022, 25, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mojikon, F.D.; Kasimin, M.E.; Molujin, A.M.; Gansau, J.A.; Jawan, R. Probiotication of Nutritious Fruit and Vegetable Juices: An Alternative to Dairy-Based Probiotic Functional Products. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Shulman, S.T.; Friedmann, H.C.; Sims, R.H. Theodor Escherich: The First Pediatric Infectious Diseases Physician? Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, 45, 1025–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Polaczek, P. Centenary of the Death of Józef Brudziński: On his Contribution to Early Bacteriology. Dev. Period Med. 2017, 21, 293–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Krawczyk, R.T.; Banaszkiewicz, A. Dr. Józef Brudziński—The True ‘Father of Probiotics’. Benef. Microbes 2021, 12, 211–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Metchnikoff, E. The Prolongation of Life; G. P. Putnam’s Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1908. [Google Scholar]
  13. Torrey, J.C. The Regulation of the Intestinal Flora of Dogs through Diet. J. Med. Res. 1919, 39, 415–447. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dapkevicius, M.; Sgardioli, B.; Câmara, S.P.A.; Poeta, P.; Malcata, F.X. Current Trends of Enterococci in Dairy Products: A Comprehensive Review of Their Multiple Roles. Foods 2021, 10, 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Farrow, J.A.E.; Collins, M.D. DNA Base Composition, DNA-DNA Homology and Long-Chain Fatty Acid Studies on Streptococcus thermophilus and Streptococcus salivarius. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1984, 130, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Schleifer, K.H.; Ehrmann, M.; Krusch, U.; Neve, H. Revival of the Species Streptococcus thermophilus (ex Orla-Jensen, 1919) Nom. Rev. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 1991, 14, 386–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Orla-Jensen, S. The Lactic Acid Bacteria. In Mémoires de L’Académie Royale des Sciences et des Lettres de Danemark; Copenhague: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1919. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zheng, J.; Wittouck, S.; Salvetti, E.; Franz, C.M.A.P.; Harris, H.M.B.; Mattarelli, P.; O’Toole, P.W.; Pot, B.; Vandamme, P.; Walter, J.; et al. A Taxonomic Note on the Genus Lactobacillus: Description of 23 Novel Genera, Emended Description of the Genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and Union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 2782–2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ozen, M.; Dinleyici, E.C. The History of Probiotics: The Untold Story. Benef. Microbes 2015, 6, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kulp, W.L.; Rettger, L.F. Comparative Study of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus. J. Bacteriol. 1924, 9, 357–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Poupard, J.A.; Husain, I.; Norris, R.F. Biology of the Bifidobacteria. Bacteriol. Rev. 1973, 37, 136–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gasbarrini, G.; Bonvicini, F.; Gramenzi, A. Probiotic History. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2016, 50 (Suppl. 2), S116–S119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lilly, D.M.; Stillwell, R.H. Probiotics: Growth-Promoting Factors Produced by Microorganisms. Science 1965, 147, 747–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Parker, R.B. Probiotics, the Other Half of the Antibiotics Story. Animal Nutr. Health 1974, 29, 4–8. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fuller, R. Probiotics in Man and Animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1989, 66, 365–378. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics Consensus Statement on the Scope and Appropriate Use of the Term Probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Binda, S.; Hill, C.; Johansen, E.; Obis, D.; Pot, B.; Sanders, M.E.; Tremblay, A.; Ouwehand, A.C. Criteria to Qualify Microorganisms as “Probiotic” in Foods and Dietary Supplements. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, G.; Chen, Y.; Xia, Y.; Song, X.; Ai, L. Characteristics of Probiotic Preparations and their Applications. Foods 2022, 11, 2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kailasapathy, K. Commercial Sources of Probiotic Strains and their Validated and Potential Health Benefits—A Review. Int. J. Fermented Foods 2013, 2, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  30. De Morais, J.L.; Garcia, E.F.; Viera, V.B.; Silva Pontes, E.D.; de Araújo, M.G.G.; de Figueirêdo, R.M.F.; Dos Santos Moreira, I.; do Egito, A.S.; Dos Santos, K.M.O.; Barbosa Soares, J.K.; et al. Autochthonous Adjunct Culture of Limosilactobacillus mucosae CNPC007 Improved the Techno-Functional, Physicochemical, and Sensory Properties of Goat Milk Greek-Style Yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 1889–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Sonnenborn, U. Escherichia coli Strain Nissle 1917-from Bench to Bedside and Back: History of a Special Escherichia coli Strain with Probiotic Properties. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2016, 363, fnw212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Li, P.; Tian, W.; Jiang, Z.; Liang, Z.; Wu, X.; Du, B. Genomic Characterization and Probiotic Potency of Bacillus sp. DU-106, a Highly Effective Producer of L-Lactic Acid Isolated from Fermented Yogurt. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cassir, N.; Benamar, S.; La Scola, B. Clostridium butyricum: From Beneficial to a New Emerging Pathogen. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Soomro, A.H.; Subhopoto, S.; Sheikh, S.A.; Khaskheli, M.; Khaskheli, S.G.; Marri, A.; Baloch, A.B. Probiotic Properties of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Traditional Yoghurt (Dahi) in Sindh Pakistan. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2022, 65, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Olson, D.W.; Aryana, K.J. An Excessively High Lactobacillus acidophilus Inoculation Level in Yogurt Lowers Product Quality during Storage. LWT 2008, 41, 911–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Omar, J.M.; Chan, Y.-M.; Jones, M.L.; Prakash, S.; Jones, P.J.H. Lactobacillus fermentum and Lactobacillus amylovorus as Probiotics Alter Body Adiposity and Gut Microflora in Healthy Persons. J. Funct. Foods 2013, 5, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Schillinger, U.; Yousif, N.M.K.; Sesar, L.; Franz, C.M.A.P. Use of Group-Specific and RAPD-PCR Analyses for Rapid Differentiation of Lactobacillus Strains from Probiotic Yogurts. Curr. Microbiol. 2003, 47, 453–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Martínez-Cañavate, A.; Sierra, S.; Lara-Villoslada, F.; Romero, J.; Maldonado, J.; Boza, J.; Xaus, J.; Olivares, M. A Probiotic Dairy Product Containing, L. gasseri CECT5714 and L. coryniformis CECT5711 Induces Immunological Changes in Children Suffering from Allergy. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2009, 20, 592–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhou, T.; Huo, R.; Kwok, L.-Y.; Li, C.; Ma, Y.; Mi, Z.; Chen, Y. Effects of Applying Lactobacillus helveticus H9 as Adjunct Starter Culture in Yogurt Fermentation and Storage. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Laue, C.; Papazova, E.; Liesegang, A.; Pannenbeckers, A.; Arendarski, P.; Linnerth, B.; Domig, K.J.; Kneifel, W.; Petricevic, L.; Schrezenmeir, J. Effect of a Yoghurt Drink Containing Lactobacillus Strains on Bacterial Vaginosis in Women—A Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Clinical Pilot Trial. Benef. Microbes 2018, 9, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Dimitrellou, D.; Kandylis, P.; Kourkoutas, Y. Assessment of Freeze-Dried Immobilized Lactobacillus casei as Probiotic Adjunct Culture in Yogurts. Foods 2019, 8, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Li, H.B.; Song, W.B.; Liu, T.T.; Xu, S.Y.; Zhang, S.S.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Liu, D.K.; Li, H.J.; Yu, J.H. Developing Novel Synbiotic Yoghurt with Lacticaseibacillus paracasei and Lactitol: Investigation of the Microbiology, Textural and Rheological Properties. Int. Dairy J. 2022, 135, 105475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Atallah, A.A. The Production of Bio-Yoghurt with Probiotic Bacteria, Royal Jelly and Bee Pollen Grains. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Khalili, M.; Rad, A.H.; Khosroushahi, A.Y.; Khosravi, H.; Jafarzadeh, S. Application of Probiotics in Folate Bio-Fortification of Yoghurt. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2020, 12, 756–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Samedi, L.; Charles, A.L. Viability of 4 Probiotic Bacteria Microencapsulated with Arrowroot Starch in the Simulated Gastrointestinal Tract (GIT) and Yoghurt. Foods 2019, 8, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Anukam, K.C.; Olise, N.A. Development of a Novel Probiotic Yogurt “PENTOYO” with a Fully Sequenced Lactobacillus pentosus KCA1 and its Survival during Storage at 4 °C. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2012, 11, 977–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Baick, S.-C.; Kim, C.-H. Assessment of Characteristics and Functional Properties of Lactobacillus Species Isolated from Kimchi for Dairy Use. Korean J. Food Sci. An. 2015, 35, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Heidari, Z.; Ghasemi, M.F.; Modiri, L. Antimicrobial Activity of Bacteriocin Produced by a New Latilactobacillus curvatus sp. LAB-3H Isolated from Traditional Yogurt. Arch. Microbiol. 2022, 204, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Allen-McFarlane, R.; Allen, A.D.; Bansal, G.; Eribo, B. Isolation and Characterization of L. parafarraginis (KU495926) Inhibiting Multidrug-Resistant and Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Gram-Negative Bacteria. J. Microbiol.Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2019, 8, 1041–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Fan, X.; Du, L.; Xu, J.; Shi, Z.; Zhang, T.; Jiang, X.; Zeng, X.; Wu, Z.; Pan, D. Effect of Single Probiotics Lacticaseibacillus casei CGMCC1.5956 and Levilactobacillus brevis CGMCC1.5954 and their Combination on the Quality of Yogurt as Fermented Milk. LWT 2022, 163, 113530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. El-Sayed, S.M.; El-Sayed, H.S.; Elgamily, H.M.; Youssef, A.M. Preparation and Evaluation of Yogurt Fortified with Probiotics Jelly Candy Enriched with Grape Seeds Extract Nanoemulsion. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e16713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Arasu, M.V.; Vijayaraghavan, P.; Esmail, G.A.; Duraipandiyan, V.; Kim, Y.O.; Kim, H.; Kim, H.-J. Probiotic and Antioxidant Potential of Lactobacillus reuteri LR12 and Lactobacillus lactis LL10 Isolated from Pineapple Puree and Quality Analysis of Pineapple-Flavored Goat Milk Yoghurt during Storage. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nduti, N.; McMillan, A.; Seney, S.; Sumarah, M.; Njeru, P.; Mwaniki, M.; Reid, G. Investigating Probiotic Yoghurt to Reduce an Aflatoxin B1 Biomarker Among School Children in Eastern Kenya: Preliminary Study. Int. Dairy J. 2016, 63, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fantinato, V.; de Carvalho, H.R.; de Sousa, A.L.O.P. Use of Yogurt Prepared with the Probiotic Streptococcus salivarius BIO5 Strain in the Control of Bacterial Tonsillitis in Children. Int. J. Probiotics Prebiotics 2020, 15, 30–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abdelazez, A.; Muhammad, Z.; Zhang, Q.-X.; Zhu, Z.-T.; Abdelmotaal, H.; Sami, R.; Meng, X.-C. Production of a Functional Frozen Yogurt Fortified with Bifidobacterium spp. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 6438528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Palaria, A.; Johnson-Kanda, I.; O’Sullivan, D.J. Effect of a Synbiotic Yogurt on Levels of Fecal Bifidobacteria, Clostridia, and Enterobacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 933–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Ma, S.; Cao, J.; Liliu, R.; Li, N.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W.; Zhai, Q. Effects of Bacillus coagulans as an Adjunct Starter Culture on Yogurt Quality and Storage. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 7466–7479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Almada-Érix, C.N.; Almada, C.N.; Souza Pedrosa, G.T.; dos Santos, P.; Schmiele, M.; Clerici, M.T.P.S.; Martinez, J.; Lollo, P.C.; Magnani, M.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Quantifying the Impact of Eight Unit Operations on the Survival of Eight Bacillus Strains with Claimed Probiotic Properties. Food Res. Int. 2021, 142, 110191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sutyak, K.E.; Wirawan, R.E.; Aroutcheva, A.A.; Chikindas, M.L. Isolation of the Bacillus subtilis Antimicrobial Peptide Subtilosin from the Dairy Product-Derived Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 104, 1067–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Zahed, O.; Khosravi-Darani, K. Effects of Cultivation Conditions on Biofortification of Yogurt with Natural Folate by Propionibacterium freudenreichii. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2022, 39, 102267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Warmi ska-Radyko, I.; Laniewska-Trokenheim, L.; Modzelewska, M. Evaluation of Antibacterial and Fungistatic Activity of Yogurts with Addition of Propionibacterium jensenii and Propionibacterium acidipropionici Strains. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2003, 68, 511–514. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  62. Ekinci, F.Y.; Gurel, M. Effect of Using Propionic Acid Bacteria as an Adjunct Culture in Yogurt Production. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 892–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Lee, N.-K.; Lim, S.-M.; Cheon, M.-J.; Paik, H.-D. Physicochemical Analysis of Yogurt Produced by Leuconostoc mesenteroides H40 and its Effects on Oxidative Stress in Neuronal Cells. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Saleena, L.A.K.; Chandran, D.; Rayirath, G.; Shanavas, A.; Rajalingam, S.; Vishvanathan, M.; Sharun, K.; Dhama, K. Development of Low-Calorie Functional Yoghurt by Incorporating Mannitol Producing Lactic Acid Bacteria (Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides) in the Standard Yoghurt Culture. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 16, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. De Santis, D.; Giacinti, G.; Chemello, G.; Frangipane, M.T. Improvement of the Sensory Characteristics of Goat Milk Yogurt. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 2289–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Ali, A.A. Isolation and Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Traditional Drinking Yoghurt in Khartoum State, Sudan. Curr. Res. Bacteriol. 2011, 4, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Melia, S.; Juliyarsi, I.; Kurnia, Y.F. Physicochemical Properties, Sensory Characteristics, and Antioxidant Activity of the Goat Milk Yogurt Probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici BK01 on the Addition of Red Ginger (Zingiber officinale var. rubrum rhizoma). Vet. World 2022, 15, 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Oyetunji, O.A.; Adebisi, K.A. Assessment of the Functional Quality and Safety of Yoghurts Produced with Starter Cultures Obtained from Selected Commercially Sold Yoghurts. Potr. S. J. F. Sci. 2018, 12, 587–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Akpinar, A.; Saygili, D.; Yerlikaya, O. Production of Set-Type Yoghurt Using Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus durans Strains with Probiotic Potential as Starter Adjuncts. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2020, 73, 726–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Demirci, T.; Akin, N.; Öztürk, H.I.; Oğul, A. A Metagenomic Approach to Homemade Back-Slopped Yogurts Produced in Mountainous Villages of Turkey with the Potential Next-Generation Probiotics. LWT 2022, 154, 112860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sarwar, A.; Aziz, T.; Al-Dalali, S.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, J.; ud Din, J.; Chen, C.; Cao, Y.; Yang, Z. Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties of Synbiotic Yogurt Made with Probiotic Yeast Saccharomyces boulardii in Combination with Inulin. Foods 2019, 8, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Moradi, R.; Nosrati, R.; Zare, H.; Tahmasebi, T.; Saderi, H.; Owlia, P. Screening and Characterization of In-Vitro Probiotic Criteria of Saccharomyces and Kluyveromyces Strains. Iran. J. Microbiol. 2018, 10, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  73. Bourdichon, F.; Casaregola, S.; Farrokh, C.; Frisvad, J.C.; Gerds, M.L.; Hammes, W.P.; Harnett, J.; Huys, G.; Laulund, S.; Ouwehand, A.; et al. Food Fermentations: Microorganisms with Technological Beneficial Use. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 154, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Endres, J.R.; Clewell, A.; Jade, K.A.; Farber, T.; Hauswirth, J.; Schauss, A.G. Safety Assessment of a Proprietary Preparation of a Novel Probiotic, Bacillus coagulans, as a Food Ingredient. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 1231–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Oberg, T.S.; McMahon, D.J.; Culumber, M.D.; McAuliffe, O.; Oberg, C.J. Invited Review: Review of Taxonomic Changes in Dairy-Related Lactobacilli. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 2750–2770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schoch, C.L.; Ciufo, S.; Domrachev, M.; Hotton, C.L.; Kannan, S.; Khovanskaya, R.; Leipe, D.; Mcveigh, R.; O’Neill, K.; Robbertse, B.; et al. NCBI Taxonomy: A Comprehensive Update on Curation, Resources and Tools. Database 2020, 2020, baaa062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gupta, R.S.; Patel, S.; Saini, N.; Chen, S. Robust Demarcation of 17 Distinct Bacillus Species Clades, Proposed as Novel Bacillaceae Genera, by Phylogenomics and Comparative Genomic Analyses: Description of Robertmurraya kyonggiensis sp. Nov. and Proposal for an Emended Genus Bacillus Limiting it Only to the Members of the Subtilis and Cereus Clades of Species. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 5753–5798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lin, T.-L.; Shu, C.-C.; Lai, W.-F.; Tzeng, C.-M.; Lai, H.-C.; Lu, C.-C. Investiture of Next Generation Probiotics on Amelioration of Diseases—Strains Do Matter. Med. Microecol. 2019, 1–2, 100002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nawaz, F.; Khan, M.N.; Javed, A.; Ahmed, I.; Ali, N.; Ali, M.I.; Bakhtiar, S.M.; Imran, M. Genomic and Functional Characterization of Enterococcus mundtii QAUEM2808, Isolated from Artisanal Fermented Milk Product Dahi. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Yadav, M.; Sunita; Shukla, P. Probiotic Potential of Weissella paramesenteroides MYPS5.1 Isolated from Customary Dairy Products and its Therapeutic Application. 3 Biotech 2022, 12, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Yang, J.; Li, Y.; Wen, Z.; Liu, W.; Meng, L.; Huang, H. Oscillospira—A Candidate for the Next-Generation Probiotics. Gut Microbes 2021, 13, 1987783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Hu, S.; Zhao, L.L.; Hu, L.T.; Xi, X.T.; Zhang, Y.L.; Wang, Y.; Chen, J.M.; Chen, J.; Kang, Z. Engineering the Probiotic Bacterium Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 as an Efficient Cell Factory for Heparosan Biosynthesis. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2022, 158, 110038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gao, J.; Li, X.; Zhang, G.; Sadiq, F.A.; Simal-Gandara, J.; Xiao, J.; Sang, Y. Probiotics in the Dairy Industry—Advances and Opportunities. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 3937–3982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bhogoju, S.; Nahashon, S. Recent Advances in Probiotic Application in Animal Health and Nutrition: A Review. Agriculture 2022, 12, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Akan, E. The Effect of Fermentation Time and Yogurt Bacteria on the Physicochemical, Microbiological and Antioxidant Properties of Probiotic Goat Yogurts. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2022, 94, e20210875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Shazly, A.B.; Khattab, M.S.A.; Fouad, M.T.; Abd El Tawab, A.M.; Saudi, E.M.; Abd El-Aziz, M. Probiotic Yoghurt Made from Milk of Ewes Fed a Diet Supplemented with Spirulina platensis or Fish Oil. Ann. Microbiol. 2022, 72, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bilal, M.; Inayat, S.; Manzoor, S.; Imran, M.; Lashari, M.H.; Hassan, A. Viability of Probiotics (Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidum) in Set Type Yogurt Made from Buffalo Milk. Pure Appl. Biol. 2021, 10, 978–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Zhang, C.; Chi, H.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, J.; Li, T.; Liu, L.; Li, A. Effects of Lactobacillus fermentum HY01 on the Quality Characteristics and Storage Stability of Yak Yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 2025–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Buchilina, A.; Aryana, K. Physicochemical and Microbiological Characteristics of Camel Milk Yogurt as Influenced by Monk Fruit Sweetener. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 1484–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Simonenko, E.S.; Begunova, A.V. Development of Fermented Milk Product Based on Mare Milk and Lactic Microorganisms Association. Vopr. Pitan. 2021, 90, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Perna, A.; Intaglietta, I.; Simonetti, A.; Gambacorta, E. Donkey Milk for Manufacture of Novel Functional Fermented Beverages. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80, S1352–S1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Küçükgöz, K.; Trząskowska, M. Nondairy Probiotic Products: Functional Foods that Require More Attention. Nutrients 2022, 14, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Aljutaily, T.; Huarte, E.; Martinez-Monteagudo, S.; Gonzalez-Hernandez, J.L.; Rovai, M.; Sergeev, I.N. Probiotic-Enriched Milk and Dairy Products Increase Gut Microbiota Diversity: A Comparative Study. Nutr. Res. 2020, 82, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Solanki, A.K.; Parmar, M.P.; Kadiya, K.S.; Thompkinson, D.K.; Patel, K.S. Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties of Probiotic Microencapsulated Enriched Infant Formula. Ind. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 68, 144–147. [Google Scholar]
  95. Yousefvand, A.; Huang, X.; Zarei, M.; Saris, P.E.J. Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Survival and Quality Parameters in Kefir Produced from Kefir Grains and Natural Kefir Starter Culture. Foods 2022, 11, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ferreira, L.; Borges, A.; Gomes, D.; Dias, S.; Pereira, C.; Henriques, M. Adding Value and Innovation in Dairy SMEs: From Butter to Probiotic Butter and Buttermilk. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e14867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Khademi, F.; Raeisi, S.N.; Younesi, M.; Motamedzadegan, A.; Rabiei, K.; Shojaei, M.; Rokni, H.; Falsafi, M. Effect of Probiotic Bacteria on Physicochemical, Microbiological, Textural, Sensory Properties and Fatty Acid Profile of Sour Cream. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2022, 166, 113244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pimentel, T.C.; de Oliveira, L.I.G.; de Souza, R.C.; Magnani, M. Probiotic Ice Cream: A Literature Overview of the Technological and Sensory Aspects and Health Properties. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2022, 75, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gocer, E.M.C.; Ergin, F.; Kücükcetin, I.O.; Kücükcetin, A. In Vitro Gastrointestinal Resistance of Lactobacillus acidophilus in Some Dairy Products. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2021, 52, 2319–2334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Wang, C.; Gao, L.; Zhao, Z.J.; Zhao, Y.J.; Yang, G.; Niu, C.H.; Li, S.Y. Impact of Probiotic Adjunct Cultures on Cheddar Cheese Texture, Contents of Free Amino Acids and Short-Chain Fatty Acids. Food Ferment. Ind. 2022, 48, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mukhtar, H.; Yaqub, S.; ul Haq, I. Production of Probiotic Mozzarella Cheese by Incorporating Locally Isolated Lactobacillus acidophilus. Ann. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Xu, X.; Cui, H.; Yuan, Z.; Xu, J.; Li, J.; Liu, J.; Liu, H.; Zhu, D. Effects of Different Combinations of Probiotics on Rheology, Microstructure, and Moisture Distribution of Soy Materials-Based Yogurt. J. Food Sci. 2022, 87, 2820–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Khosroshahi, E.D.; Razavi, S.H.; Kaini, H.; Aghakhani, A. Production of Non-Dairy Fermented Probiotic Powder Based on Wheat Germ using Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus plantarum. J. Innov. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 14, fa69–fa81. [Google Scholar]
  104. Pavunc, A.L.; Penava, L.; Ranilović, J.; Novak, J.; Banić, M.; Butorac, K.; Petrović, E.; Mihaljević-Herman, V.; Bendelja, K.; Mlakar, A.S.; et al. Influence of Dehydrated Wheat/Rice Cereal Matrices on Probiotic Activity of Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis BB-12®. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2019, 57, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lillo-Pérez, S.; Guerra-Valle, M.; Orellana-Palma, P.; Petzold, G. Probiotics in Fruit and Vegetable Matrices: Opportunities for Nondairy Consumers. LWT 2021, 151, 112106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Chan, M.Z.A.; Chua, J.Y.; Toh, M.; Liu, S.-Q. Survival of Probiotic Strain Lactobacillus paracasei L26 during Co-fermentation with S. cerevisiae for the Development of a Novel Beer Beverage. Food Microbiol. 2019, 82, 541–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Chan, M.Z.A.; Liu, S.-Q. Coffee Brews as Food Matrices for Delivering Probiotics: Opportunities, Challenges, and Potential Health Benefits. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 119, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Munekata, P.E.S.; Pateiro, M.; Tomasevic, I.; Dominguez, R.; da Silva Barretto, A.C.; Santos, E.M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Functional Fermented Meat Products with Probiotics-A Review. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 133, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hossain, M.N.; Ranadheera, C.S.; Fang, Z.; Ajlouni, S. Healthy Chocolate Enriched with Probiotics: A Review. Food Sci. Technol. Camp. 2021, 41, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Jiang, X.; Shekarforoush, E.; Muhammed, M.K.; Whitehead, K.A.; Arneborg, N.; Risbo, J. Lactic Acid Bacteria as Structural Building Blocks in Non-Fat Whipping Cream Analogues. Food Hydrocoll. 2023, 135, 108137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ranadheera, C.S.; Vidanarachchi, J.K.; Rocha, R.S.; Cruz, A.G.; Ajlouni, S. Probiotic Delivery through Fermentation: Dairy vs. Non-Dairy Beverages. Fermentation 2017, 3, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Permpoonpattana, P.; Hong, H.A.; Khaneja, R.; Cutting, S.M. Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis Strains as Probiotics and their Potential as a Food Ingredient. Benef. Microbes 2012, 3, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Stojanov, S.; Berlec, A.; Štrukelj, B. The Influence of Probiotics on the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes Ratio in the Treatment of Obesity and Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Rinninella, E.; Raoul, P.; Cintoni, M.; Franceschi, F.; Miggiano, G.A.D.; Gasbarrini, A.; Mele, M.C. What is the Healthy Gut Microbiota Composition? A Changing Ecosystem across Age, Environment, Diet, and Diseases. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Gilbert, J.; Blaser, M.J.; Caporaso, J.G.; Jansson, J.; Lynch, S.V.; Knight, R. Current Understanding of the Human Microbiome. Nat. Med. 2018, 24, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dekkers, K.F.; Sayols-Baixeras, S.; Baldanzi, G.; Nowak, C.; Hammar, U.; Nguyen, D.; Varotsis, G.; Brunkwall, L.; Nielsen, N.; Eklund, A.C.; et al. An Online Atlas of Human Plasma Metabolite Signatures of Gut Microbiome Composition. Nat Commun. 2022, 13, 5370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Vijay, A.; Valdes, A.M. Role of the Gut Microbiome in Chronic Diseases: A Narrative Review. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 76, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Koblinsky, N.D.; Power, K.A.; Middleton, L.; Ferland, G.; Anderson, N.D. The Role of the Gut Microbiome in Diet and Exercise Effects on Cognition: A Review of the Intervention Literature. J. Gerontol. Ser. A 2022, glac166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bruckner, J.J.; Stednitz, S.J.; Grice, M.Z.; Zaidan, D.; Massaquoi, M.S.; Larsch, J.; Tallafuss, A.; Guillemin, K.; Washbourne, P.; Eisen, J.S. The Microbiota Promotes Social Behavior by Modulating Microglial Remodeling of Forebrain Neurons. PLoS Biol. 2022, 20, e3001838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Veiga, P.; Pons, N.; Agrawal, A.; Oozeer, R.; Guyonnet, D.; Brazeilles, R.; Faurie, J.-M.; Vlieg, J.E.T.v.H.; Houghton, L.A.; Whorwell, P.J.; et al. Changes of the Human Gut Microbiome Induced by a Fermented Milk Product. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Lisko, D.J.; Johnston, G.P.; Johnston, C.G. Effects of Dietary Yogurt on the Healthy Human Gastrointestinal (GI) Microbiome. Microorganisms 2017, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  122. Le Roy, C.I.; Kurilshikov, A.; Leeming, E.R.; Visconti, A.; Bowyer, R.C.E.; Menni, C.; Falchi, M.; Koutnikova, H.; Veiga, P.; Zhernakova, A.; et al. Yoghurt Consumption is Associated with Changes in the Composition of the Human Gut Microbiome and Metabolome. BMC Microbiol. 2022, 22, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Furman, D.; Campisi, J.; Verdin, E.; Carrera-Bastos, P.; Targ, S.; Franceschi, C.; Ferrucci, L.; Gilroy, D.W.; Fasano, A.; Miller, G.W.; et al. Chronic Inflammation in the Etiology of Disease Across the Life Span. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 1822–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Warman, D.J.; Jia, H.; Kato, H. The Potential Roles of Probiotics, Resistant Starch, and Resistant Proteins in Ameliorating Inflammation during Aging (Inflammaging). Nutrients 2022, 14, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Villafuerte, K.R.V.; Martinez, C.J.H.; Nobre, A.V.V.; Maia, L.P.; Tirapelli, C. What Are Microbiological Effects of the Adjunctive Use of Probiotics in the Treatment of Periodontal Diseases? A Systematic Review. Benef. Microbes 2021, 12, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Song, D.; Lee, H.B.; Kim, G.-B.; Kang, S.-S. Whey Fermented by Enterococcus faecalis M157 Exhibits Antiinflammatory and Antibiofilm Activities Against Oral Pathogenic Bacteria. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 1900–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Leis, R.; de Castro, M.-J.; de Lamas, C.; Picáns, R.; Couce, M.L. Effects of Prebiotic and Probiotic Supplementation on Lactase Deficiency and Lactose Intolerance: A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Anbukkarasi, K.; Maheswari, T.U.; Hemalatha, T.; Nanda, D.K.; Singh, P.; Singh, R. Preparation of Low Galactose Yogurt Using Cultures of Gal+ Streptococcus thermophilus in Combination with Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 2183–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Chen, L.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, D.; Ke, Y.; Zeng, X. Propionate and Butyrate Produced by Gut Microbiota after Probiotic Supplementation Attenuate Lung Metastasis of Melanoma Cells in Mice. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2021, 65, 2100096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. LeBlanc, J.G.; Milani, C.; de Giori, G.S.; Sesma, F.; van Sinderen, D.; Ventura, M. Bacteria as Vitamin Suppliers to their Host: A Gut Microbiota Perspective. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2013, 24, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Diez-Gutiérrez, L.; Vicente, L.S.; Sáenz, J.; Barron, L.J.R.; Chávarri, M. Characterisation of the Probiotic Potential of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum K16 and its Ability to Produce the Postbiotic Metabolite γ-Aminobutyric Acid. J. Funct. Foods 2022, 97, 105230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Khaneghah, A.M.; Abhari, K.; Eş, I.; Soares, M.B.; Oliveira, R.B.A.; Hosseini, H.; Rezaei, M.; Balthazar, C.F.; Silva, R.; Cruz, A.G.; et al. Interactions between Probiotics and Pathogenic Microorganisms in Hosts and Foods: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 95, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ruiz, M.J.; Sirini, N.E.; Signorini, M.L.; Etcheverría, A.; Zbrun, M.V.; Soto, L.P.; Zimmermann, J.A.; Frizzo, L.S. Protective Effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LP5 in a Murine Model of Colonisation by Campylobacter coli DSPV458. Benef. Microbes 2021, 12, 553–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Moradi, M.; Mardani, K.; Tajik, H. Characterization and Application of Postbiotics of Lactobacillus spp. on Listeria monocytogenes in vitro and in Food Models. LWT 2019, 111, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Silva, D.R.; Sardi, J.d.C.O.; Pitangui, N.d.S.; Roque, S.M.; Barbosa da Silva, A.C.; Rosalen, P.L. Probiotics as an Alternative Antimicrobial Therapy: Current Reality and Future Directions. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 73, 104080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Beck, L.C.; Masi, A.C.; Young, G.R.; Vatanen, T.; Lamb, C.A.; Smith, R.; Coxhead, J.; Butler, A.; Marsland, B.J.; Embleton, N.D.; et al. Strain-Specific Impacts of Probiotics Are a Significant Driver of Gut Microbiome Development in Very Preterm Infants. Nat. Microbiol. 2022, 7, 1525–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Paytuví-Gallart, A.; Sanseverino, W.; Winger, A.M. Daily Intake of Probiotic Strain Bacillus subtilis DE111 Supports a Healthy Microbiome in Children Attending Day-Care. Benef. Microbes 2020, 11, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Black, F.; Einarsson, K.; Lidbeck, A.; Orrhage, K.; Nord, C.E. Effect of Lactic Acid Producing Bacteria on the Human Intestinal Microflora during Ampicillin Treatment. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 1991, 23, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Horvath, A.; Durdevic, M.; Leber, B.; di Vora, K.; Rainer, F.; Krones, E.; Douschan, P.; Spindelboeck, W.; Durchschein, F.; Zollner, G.; et al. Changes in the Intestinal Microbiome during a Multispecies Probiotic Intervention in Compensated Cirrhosis. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Liu, S.; Liu, H.; Chen, L.; Liang, S.-S.; Shi, K.; Meng, W.; Xue, J.; He, Q.; Jiang, H. Effect of Probiotics on the Intestinal Microbiota of Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Trial. Eur. J. Nutr. 2020, 59, 3755–3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Almada-Érix, C.N.; Almada, C.N.; Cabral, L.; de Medeiros, V.P.B.; Roquetto, A.R.; Santos-Junior, V.A.; Fontes, M.; Gonçalves, A.E.S.S.; dos Santos, A.; Lollo, P.C.; et al. Orange Juice and Yogurt Carrying Probiotic Bacillus coagulans GBI-30 6086: Impact of Intake on Wistar Male Rats Health Parameters and Gut Bacterial Diversity. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 623951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Ahmadi, S.; Wang, S.; Nagpal, R.; Wang, B.; Jain, S.; Razazan, A.; Mishra, S.P.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Z.; Kavanagh, K.; et al. A Human-Origin Probiotic Cocktail Ameliorates Aging-Related Leaky Gut and Inflammation Via Modulating the Microbiota/Taurine/Tight Junction Axis. JCI Insight. 2020, 5, e132055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Popović, N.; Brdarić, E.; Đokić, J.; Dinić, M.; Veljović, K.; Golić, N.; Terzić-Vidojević, A. Yogurt Produced by Novel Natural Starter Cultures Improves Gut Epithelial Barrier In Vitro. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Hoffmann, A.; Kleniewska, P.; Pawliczak, R. Antioxidative Activity of Probiotics. Arch. Med. Sci. 2021, 17, 792–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Dos Santos Cruz, B.C.; Moraes, L.F.d.S.; Marcon, L.D.N.; Dias, K.A.; Murad, L.B.; Sarandy, M.M.; Lopes da Conceição, L.; Gonçalves, R.V.; Fortes Ferreira, C.L.d.L.; Peluzio, M.d.C.G. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Probiotic VSL#3 and Synbiotic VSL#3 and Yacon-Based Product in Reducing Oxidative Stress and Intestinal Permeability in Mice Induced to Colorectal Carcinogenesis. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 1448–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Kostelac, D.; Gerić, M.; Gajski, G.; Frece, J. Probiotic and Paraprobiotic Derivates Exhibit Anti-Inflammatory and Genoprotective Effects during Induced Stress. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 133, 819–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wang, X.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, X. Probiotics Regulate Gut Microbiota: An Effective Method to Improve Immunity. Molecules 2021, 26, 6076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Rajoka, M.S.R.; Wu, Y.; Mehwish, H.M.; Bansal, M.; Zhao, L. Lactobacillus Exopolysaccharides: New Perspectives on Engineering Strategies, Physiochemical Functions, and Immunomodulatory Effects on Host Health. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 103, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Smecuol, E.; Constante, M.; Temprano, M.P.; Costa, A.F.; Moreno, M.L.; Pinto-Sanchez, M.I.; Vázquez, H.; Stefanolo, J.P.; Gonzalez, A.F.; D’Adamo, C.R.; et al. Effect of Bifidobacterium infantis NLS Super Strain in Symptomatic Coeliac Disease Patients on Long-Term Gluten-Free Diet—An Exploratory Study. Benef. Microbes. 2020, 11, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Kanauchi, O.; Andoh, A.; Bakar, S.A.; Yamamoto, N. Probiotics and Paraprobiotics in Viral Infection: Clinical Application and Effects on the Innate and Acquired Immune Systems. Curr. Pharmac. Des. 2018, 24, 710–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Petrova, M.I.; van den Broek, M.F.L.; Spacova, I.; Verhoeven, T.L.A.; Balzarini, J.; Vanderleyden, J.; Schols, D.; Lebeer, S. Engineering Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and GR-1 to Express HIV-Inhibiting Griffithsin. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2018, 52, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Anukam, K.C.; Osazuwa, E.O.; Osadolor, H.B.; Bruce, A.W.; Reid, G. Yogurt Containing Probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and L. reuteri RC-14 Helps Resolve Moderate Diarrhea and Increases CD4 Count in HIV/AIDS Patients. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2008, 42, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Xu, B.; Liang, S.; Zhao, J.; Li, X.; Guo, J.; Xin, B.; Li, B.; Huo, G.; Ma, W. Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis XLTG11 Improves Antibiotic-Related Diarrhea by Alleviating Inflammation, Enhancing Intestinal Barrier Function and Regulating Intestinal Flora. Food Funct. 2022, 13, 6404–6418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Tian, Y.; Li, M.; Song, W.; Jiang, R.; Li, Y.Q. Effects of Probiotics on Chemotherapy in Patients with Lung Cancer. Oncol. Lett. 2019, 17, 2836–2848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Whelan, K. Enteral-Tube-Feeding Diarrhoea: Manipulating the Colonic Microbiota with Probiotics and Prebiotics. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2007, 66, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Yang, Y.; Pei, J.; Qin, Z.; Wei, L. Efficacy of Probiotics to Prevent and/or Alleviate Childhood Rotavirus Infections. J. Funct. Foods 2019, 52, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Sazawal, S.; Hiremath, G.; Dhingra, U.; Malik, P.; Deb, S.; Black, R.E. Efficacy of Probiotics in Prevention of Acute Diarrhoea: A Meta-Analysis of Masked, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trials. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2006, 6, 374–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Hilton, E.; Kolakowski, P.; Singer, C.; Smith, M. Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG as a Diarrheal Preventive in Travelers. J. Travel Med. 1997, 4, 41–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Black, F.T.; Andersen, P.L.; Ørskov, J.; Ørskov, F.; Gaarslev, K.; Laulund, S. Prophylactic Efficacy of Lactobacilli on Traveler’s Diarrhea. In Travel Medicine; Steffan, R., Lobel, H., Haworth, J., Bradley, D.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Wu, Z.; Xu, Q.; Gu, S.; Wang, Q.; Chen, Y.; Lv, L.; Zheng, B.; Wang, K.; Wang, S.; Xia, J.; et al. Modulation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on the Gut Microbiota and Metabolism in Mice with Clostridioides difficile Infection. Food Funct. 2022, 13, 5667–5679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Parra-Sepúlveda, C.; Sánchez-Alonzo, K.; Olivares-Muñoz, J.; Gutiérrez-Zamorano, C.; Smith, C.T.; Carvajal, R.I.; Sáez-Carrillo, K.; González, C.; García-Cancino, A. Consumption of a Gelatin Supplemented with the Probiotic Strain Limosilactobacillus fermentum UCO-979C Prevents Helicobacter pylori Infection in a Young Adult Population Achieved. Foods 2022, 11, 1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. He, Y.; Zhu, L.; Chen, J.; Tang, X.; Pan, M.; Yuan, W.; Wang, H. Efficacy of Probiotic Compounds in Relieving Constipation and their Colonization in Gut Microbiota. Molecules 2022, 27, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Chen, J.L.; Zhang, W.X.; Gan, D. Alleviation of Slow Transit Constipation by Probiotics Complex. Food Ferment. Inds. 2022, 48, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
  164. Van der Geest, A.M.; Schukking, I.; Brummer, R.J.M.; van de Burgwal, L.H.M.; Larsen, O.F.A. Comparing Probiotic and Drug Interventions in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Benef. Microbes 2022, 13, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Tobias, J.; Olyaei, A.; Laraway, B.; Jordan, B.K.; Dickinson, S.L.; Golzarri-Arroyo, L.; Fialkowski, E.; Owora, A.; Scottoline, B. Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis EVC001 Administration is Associated with a Significant Reduction in the Incidence of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants. J. Pediatr. 2022, 244, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Dong, J.; Teng, G.; Wei, T.; Gao, W.; Wang, H. Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Probiotics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Pouchitis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. LeBlanc, J.-F.; Segal, J.P.; de Campos Braz, L.M.; Hart, A.L. The Microbiome as a Therapy in Pouchitis and Ulcerative Colitis. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Wan, Y.D.; Zhu, R.X.; Bian, Z.Z.; Sun, T.W. Effect of Probiotics on Length of Hospitalization in Mild Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. World J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 27, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Tang, G.; Zhang, L. Update on Strategies of Probiotics for the Prevention and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer. Nutr. Cancer 2022, 74, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Davoodvandi, A.; Fallahi, F.; Tamtaji, O.R.; Tajiknia, V.; Banikazemi, Z.; Fathizadeh, H.; Abbasi-Kolli, M.; Aschner, M.; Ghandali, M.; Sahebkar, A.; et al. An Update on the Effects of Probiotics on Gastrointestinal Cancers. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 680400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Srikham, K.; Daengprok, W.; Niamsup, P.; Thirabunyanon, M. Characterization of Streptococcus salivarius as New Probiotics Derived from Human Breast Milk and their Potential on Proliferative Inhibition of Liver and Breast Cancer Cells and Antioxidant Activity. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 797445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Ranjbar, S.; Seyednejad, S.A.; Azimi, H.; Rezaeizadeh, H.; Rahimi, R. Emerging Roles of Probiotics in Prevention and Treatment of Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of their Therapeutic Potential. Nutr. Cancer 2019, 71, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Wu, H.; Ganguly, S.; Tollefsbol, T.O. Modulating Microbiota as a New Strategy for Breast Cancer Prevention and Treatment. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Rosa, L.S.; Santos, M.L.; Abreu, J.P.; Balthazar, C.F.; Rocha, R.S.; Silva, H.L.A.; Esmerino, E.A.; Duarte, M.C.K.H.; Pimentel, T.C.; Freitas, M.Q.; et al. Antiproliferative and Apoptotic Effects of Probiotic Whey Dairy Beverages in Human Prostate Cell Lines. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Kandati, K.; Belagal, P.; Nannepaga, J.S.; Viswanath, B. Role of Probiotics in the Management of Cervical Cancer: An Update. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2022, 48, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Yurtdaş, G.; Akdevelioğlu, Y. A New Approach to Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: The Gut Microbiota. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2020, 39, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Qian, Z.; Zhu, H.; Zhao, D.; Yang, P.; Gao, F.; Lu, C.; Yin, Y.; Kan, S.; Chen, D. Probiotic Lactobacillus sp. Strains Inhibit Growth, Adhesion, Biofilm Formation, and Gene Expression of Bacterial Vaginosis-Inducing Gardnerella vaginalis. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Aburjaile, F.F.; Viana, M.V.C.; Cerqueira, J.C.; de Jesus, L.C.L.; da Silva, T.F.; Carvalho, R.; Azevedo, V. Probiotic Potential of Novel Brazilian Lactobacillus crispatus Strains. Genet. Mol. Res. 2021, 20, 18900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Li, P.; Wei, K.; He, X.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Z.; Wei, J.; Chen, X.; Wei, H.; Chen, T. Vaginal Probiotic Lactobacillus crispatus Seems to Inhibit Sperm Activity and Subsequently Reduces Pregnancies in Rat. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 705690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Wang, Y.; Xie, Z. Exploring the Role of Gut Microbiome in Male Reproduction. Andrology 2022, 10, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Feyisetan, O.; Tracey, C.; Hellawell, G.O. Probiotics, Dendritic Cells and Bladder Cancer. BJU Int. 2011, 109, 1594–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Zoqlam, R.; Lazauskaite, S.; Glickman, S.; Zaitseva, L.; Ilie, P.-C.; Qi, S. Emerging Molecular Mechanisms and Genetic Targets for Developing Novel Therapeutic Strategies for Treating Bladder Diseases. Eur. J. Pharm Sci. 2022, 173, 106167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Sadeghi-bojd, S.; Naghshizadian, R.; Mazaheri, M.; Sharbaf, F.G.; Assadi, F. Efficacy of Probiotic Prophylaxis after the First Febrile Urinary Tract Infection in Children with Normal Urinary Tracts. J. Pediatric Infect. Dis. Soc. 2020, 9, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Campieri, C.; Campieri, M.; Bertuzzi, V.; Swennen, E.; Matteuzzi, D.; Stefoni, S.; Pirovano, F.; Centi, C.; Ulisse, S.; Famularo, G.; et al. Reduction of Oxaluria after an Oral Course of Lactic Acid Bacteria at High Concentration. Kidney Int. 2001, 60, 1097–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  185. Yamaguchi, T.; Tsuji, S.; Akagawa, S.; Akagawa, Y.; Kino, J.; Yamanouchi, S.; Kimata, T.; Hashiyada, M.; Akane, A.; Kaneko, K. Clinical Significance of Probiotics for Children with Idiopathic Nephrotic Syndrome. Nutrients 2021, 13, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Picó-Monllor, J.A.; Ruzafa-Costas, B.; Núñez-Delegido, E.; Sánchez-Pellicer, P.; Peris-Berraco, J.; Navarro-Lopez, V. Selection of Probiotics in the Prevention of Respiratory Tract Infections and their Impact on Occupational Health: Scoping Review. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Lu, W.; Fang, Z.; Liu, X.; Li, L.; Zhang, P.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W. The Potential Role of Probiotics in Protection Against Influenza a Virus Infection in Mice. Foods 2021, 10, 902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Nguyen, Q.V.; Chong, L.C.; Hor, Y.-Y.; Lew, L.-C.; Rather, I.A.; Choi, S.-B. Role of Probiotics in the Management of COVID-19: A Computational Perspective. Nutrients 2022, 14, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Manzanares, W.; Lemieux, M.; Langlois, P.L.; Wischmeyer, P.E. Probiotic and Synbiotic Therapy in Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit. Care 2016, 20, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  190. Yamanishi, S.; Pawankar, R. Current Advances on the Microbiome and Role of Probiotics in Upper Airways Disease. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2020, 20, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Velez, E.; Novotny-Nuñez, I.; Correa, S.; Perdigón, G.; Maldonado-Galdeano, C. Modulation of Gut Immune Response by Probiotic Fermented Milk Consumption to Control IgE in a Respiratory Allergy Model. Benef. Microbes 2021, 12, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Chen, C.-M.; Cheng, S.-H.; Chen, Y.-H.; Wu, C.-C.; Hsu, C.-C.; Lin, C.-T.; Tsai, Y.-C. Supplementation with Heat-Inactivated Lacticaseibacillus paracasei K47 Ameliorates Allergic Asthma in Mice by Regulating the Th1/Th2 Balance. Benef. Microbes 2022, 13, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Van Dorst, J.M.; Tam, R.Y.; Ooi, C.Y. What Do We Know About the Microbiome in Cystic Fibrosis? Is There a Role for Probiotics and Prebiotics? Nutrients 2022, 14, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Fang, Z.; Li, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, J.; Lu, W.; Chen, W. Gut Microbiota, Probiotics, and their Interactions in Prevention and Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis: A Review. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 720393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Szántó, M.; Dózsa, A.; Antal, D.; Szabó, K.; Kemény, L.; Bai, P. Targeting the Gut-Skin Axis—Probiotics as New Tools for Skin Disorder Management? Exp. Dermatol. 2019, 28, 1210–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  196. Levkovich, T.; Poutahidis, T.; Smillie, C.; Varian, B.J.; Ibrahim, Y.M.; Lakritz, J.R.; Alm, E.J.; Erdman, S.E. Probiotic Bacteria Induce a ‘Glow of Health’. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e53867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Yun, S.-W.; Son, Y.-H.; Lee, D.-Y.; Shin, Y.-J.; Han, M.J.; Kim, D.-H. Lactobacillus plantarum and Bifidobacterium bifidum Alleviate Dry Eye in Mice with Exorbital Lacrimal Gland Excision by Modulating Gut Inflammation and Microbiota. Food Funct. 2021, 12, 2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Iovieno, A.; Lambiase, A.; Sacchetti, M.; Stampachiacchiere, B.; Micera, A.; Bonini, S. Preliminary Evidence of the Efficacy of Probiotic Eye-Drop Treatment in Patients with Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2008, 246, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Bungau, S.G.; Behl, T.; Singh, A.; Sehgal, A.; Singh, S.; Chigurupati, S.; Vijayabalan, S.; Das, S.; Palanimuthu, V.R. Targeting Probiotics in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Sanchez, P.; Letarouilly, J.-G.; Nguyen, Y.; Sigaux, J.; Barnetche, T.; Czernichow, S.; Flipo, R.-M.; Sellam, J.; Daïen, C. Efficacy of Probiotics in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Spondyloarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients 2022, 14, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Lei, M.; Hua, L.-M.; Wang, D.-W. The Effect of Probiotic Treatment on Elderly Patients with Distal Radius Fracture: A Prospective Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomised Clinical Trial. Benef. Microbes 2016, 7, 631–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Lei, M.; Guo, C.; Wang, Y.; Hua, L.; Xue, S.; Yu, D.; Zhang, C.; Wang, D. Oral Administration of Probiotic Lactobacillus casei Shirota Relieves Pain after Single Rib Fracture: A Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 27, 1252–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Kruger, M.C.; Fear, A.; Chua, W.-H.; Plimmer, G.G.; Schollum, L.M. The Effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 on Mineral Absorption and Bone Health in Growing Male and Ovariectomised Female Rats. Dairy Sci. Technol. 2009, 89, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Cornes, R.; Sintes, C.; Peña, A.; Albin, S.; O’Brien, K.O.; Abrams, S.A.; Donangelo, C.M. Daily Intake of a Functional Synbiotic Yogurt Increases Calcium Absorption in Young Adult Women. J. Nutr. 2022, 152, 1647–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Vonderheid, S.C.; Tussing-Humphreys, L.; Park, C.; Pauls, H.; OjiNjideka Hemphill, N.; LaBomascus, B.; McLeod, A.; Koenig, M.D. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Probiotic Species on Iron Absorption and Iron Status. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  206. Trotter, R.E.; Vazquez, A.R.; Grubb, D.S.; Freedman, K.E.; Grabos, L.E.; Jones, S.; Gentile, C.L.; Melby, C.L.; Johnson, S.A.; Weir, T.L. Bacillus subtilis DE111 Intake May Improve Blood Lipids and Endothelial Function in Healthy Adults. Benef. Microbes 2020, 11, 621–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Zhang, C.; Jiang, J.; Wang, C.; Li, S.; Yu, L.; Tian, F.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W.; Zhai, Q. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of the Effects of Probiotics on Type 2 Diabetes in Adults. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 41, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Bayat, A.; Azizi-Soleiman, F.; Heidari-Beni, M.; Feizi, A.; Iraj, B.; Ghiasvand, R.; Askari, G. Effect of Cucurbita ficifolia and Probiotic Yogurt Consumption on Blood Glucose, Lipid Profile, and Inflammatory Marker in Type 2 Diabetes. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. O’Morain, V.L.; Ramji, D.P. The Potential of Probiotics in the Prevention and Treatment of Atherosclerosis. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2020, 64, 1900797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Maldonado-Lobón, J.A.; Blanco-Rojo, R.; Maldonado, J.; Ali, M.A.; Almazán, M.V.; Suanes-Cabello, A.; Callejón, E.; Jaldo, R.; Benavídes, M.R.; Negrillo, A.M.; et al. Efficacy of Bifidobacterium breve CECT7263 for Infantile Colic Treatment: An Open-Label, Parallel, Randomised, Controlled Trial. Benef. Microbes 2021, 12, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Poutahidis, T.; Kleinewietfeld, M.; Smillie, C.; Levkovich, T.; Perrotta, A.; Bhela, S.; Varian, B.J.; Ibrahim, Y.M.; Lakritz, J.R.; Kearney, S.M.; et al. Microbial Reprogramming Inhibits Western Diet-Associated Obesity. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e68596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  212. Tomé-Castro, X.M.; Rodriguez-Arrastia, M.; Cardona, D.; Rueda-Ruzafa, L.; Molina-Torres, G.; Roman, P. Probiotics as a Therapeutic Strategy in Obesity and Overweight: A Systematic Review. Benef. Microbes 2021, 12, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Jantararussamee, C.; Rodniem, S.; Taweechotipatr, M.; Showpittapornchai, U.; Pradidarcheep, W. Hepatoprotective Effect of Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria on Thioacetamide-Induced Liver Fibrosis in Rats. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2021, 13, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Jin, H.; Xu, X.; Pang, B.; Yang, R.; Sun, H.; Jiang, C.; Shao, D.; Shi, J. Probiotic and Prebiotic Interventions for Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Benef. Microbes 2021, 12, 517–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Zhao, H.; Lu, Z.; Lu, Y. The Potential of Probiotics in the Amelioration of Hyperuricemia. Food Funct. 2022, 13, 2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. De Oliveira Filho, J.G.; Carvalho, A.S.e.S.; Alves, J.D.S.; Egea, M.B. Next-Generation Probiotics as a Therapeutic Strategy for the Treatment of Phenylketonuria: A Review. Nut. Rev. 2022, 80, 2100–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Lee, M.-C.; Hsu, Y.-J.; Ho, H.-H.; Hsieh, S.-H.; Kuo, Y.-W.; Sung, H.-C.; Huang, C.-C. Lactobacillus salivarius subspecies salicinius SA-03 is a New Probiotic Capable of Enhancing Exercise Performance and Decreasing Fatigue. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  218. Haarhuis, J.E.; Kardinaal, A.; Kortman, G.A.M. Probiotics, Prebiotics and Postbiotics for Better Sleep Quality: A Narrative Review. Benef. Microbes 2022, 13, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Ansari, F.; Pourjafar, H.; Tabrizi, A.; Homayouni, A. The Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics on Mental Disorders: A Review on Depression, Anxiety, Alzheimer, and Autism Spectrum Disorders. Current Pharma. Biotechnol. 2020, 21, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Rao, A.V.; Bested, A.C.; Beaulne, T.M.; Katzman, M.A.; Iorio, C.; Berardi, J.M.; Logan, A.C. A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study of a Probiotic in Emotional Symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Gut Pathog. 2009, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  221. Jeong, J.; Lee, Y.; Yoon, S.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, W. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LRCC5314 Includes a Gene for Serotonin Biosynthesis Via the Tryptophan Metabolic Pathway. J. Microbiol. 2021, 59, 1092–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Benton, D.; Williams, C.; Brown, A. Impact of Consuming a Milk Drink Containing a Probiotic on Mood and Cognition. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  223. Ho, S.-T.; Hsieh, Y.-T.; Wang, S.-Y.; Chen, M.-J. Improving Effect of a Probiotic Mixture on Memory and Learning Abilities in D-Galactose-Treated Aging Mice. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 1901–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  224. Meng, H.Y.H.; Mak, C.C.H.; Mak, W.Y.; Zuo, T.; Ko, H.; Chan, F.K.L. Probiotic Supplementation Demonstrates Therapeutic Potential in Treating Gut Dysbiosis and Improving Neurocognitive Function in Age-Related Dementia. Eur. J. Nutr. 2022, 61, 1701–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Song, W.; Zhang, M.; Teng, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, L. Prebiotics and Probiotics for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials. J. Med. Microbiol. 2022, 71, 001510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Azevedo, K.P.; de Jesus Catulio, M.Z.; de Souza, R.G.M.; Stringhini, M.L.F. Probiotics in Crohn’s Disease Remission: A Systematic Review. Arch. Latinoam. Nutr. 2022, 72, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Sakandar, H.A.; Zhang, H. Trends in Probiotic(s)—Fermented Milks and Their in vivo Functionality: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 2021, 110, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Hadjimbei, E.; Botsaris, G.; Chrysostomou, S. Beneficial Effects of Yoghurts and Probiotic Fermented Milks and Their Functional Food Potential. Foods 2022, 11, 2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Ng, S.C.; Hart, A.L.; Kamm, M.A.; Stagg, A.J.; Knight, S.C. Mechanisms of Action of Probiotics: Recent Advances. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2009, 15, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Sánchez, B.; Delgado, S.; Blanco-Miguez, A.; Lourenço, A.; Gueimonde, M.; Margolles, A. Probiotics, Gut Microbiota, and Their Influence on Host Health and Disease. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2017, 61, 1600240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  231. Mathipa-Mdakane, M.G.; Thantsha, M.S. Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus: A Suitable Candidate for the Construction of Novel Bioengineered Probiotic Strains for Targeted Pathogen Control. Foods 2022, 11, 785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  232. Zhang, C.; Derrien, M.; Levenez, F.; Brazeilles, R.; Ballal, S.A.; Kim, J.; Degivry, M.-C.; Quéré, G.; Garault, P.; van Hylckama Vlieg, J.E.T.; et al. Ecological Robustness of the Gut Microbiota in Response to Ingestion of Transient Food-Borne Microbes. ISME J. 2016, 10, 2235–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  233. Veiga, P.; Suez, J.; Derrien, M.; Elinav, E. Moving from Probiotics to Precision Probiotics. Nat. Microbiol. 2020, 5, 878–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Peng, C.; Yao, G.; Sun, Y.; Guo, S.; Wang, J.; Mu, X.F.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, H. Comparative Effects of the Single and Binary Probiotics of Lacticaseibacillus casei Zhang and Bifidobacterium lactis V9 on the Growth and Metabolomic Profiles in Yogurts. Food Res. Int. 2022, 152, 110603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Fan, X.; Shi, Z.; Xu, J.; Li, C.; Li, X.; Jiang, X.; Du, L.; Tu, M.; Zeng, X.; Wu, Z.; et al. Characterization of the Effects of Binary Probiotics and Wolfberry Dietary Fiber on the Quality of Yogurt. Food Chem. 2023, 406, 135020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  236. McFarland, L.V. Efficacy of Single-Strain Probiotics Versus Multi-Strain Mixtures: Systematic Review of Strain and Disease Specificity. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2021, 66, 694–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Washburn, R.L.; Sandberg, D.; Gazdik Stofer, M.A. Supplementation of a Single Species Probiotic Does Not Affect Diversity and Composition of the Healthy Adult Gastrointestinal Microbiome. Hum. Nutr. Metab. 2022, 28, 200148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Nyanzi, R.; Jooste, P.J.; Buys, E.M. Invited Review: Probiotic Yogurt Quality Criteria, Regulatory Framework, Clinical Evidence, and Analytical Aspects. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Cheplin, H.A.; Rettger, L.F. Studies on the Transformation of the Intestinal Flora, with Special Reference to the Implantation of Bacillus acidophilus, II. Feeding Experiments on Man. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1920, 6, 704–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  240. Mater, D.D.G.; Bretigny, L.; Firmesse, O.; Flores, M.-J.; Mogenet, A.; Bresson, J.-L.; Corthier, G. Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus Survive Gastrointestinal Transit of Healthy Volunteers Consuming Yogurt. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2005, 250, 185–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  241. Elli, M.; Callegari, M.L.; Ferrari, S.; Bessi, E.; Cattivelli, D.; Soldi, S.; Morelli, L.; Feuillerat, N.G.; Antoine, J.-M. Survival of Yogurt Bacteria in the Human Gut. Appl. Environm. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 5113–5117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  242. Martinović, A.; Cocuzzi, R.; Arioli, S.; Mora, D. Streptococcus thermophilus: To Survive, or Not to Survive the Gastrointestinal Tract, that is the Question! Nutrients 2020, 12, 2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  243. Uriot, O.; Denis, S.; Junjua, M.; Roussel, Y.; Dary-Mourot, A.; Blanquet-Diot, S. Streptococcus thermophilus: From Yogurt Starter to a new Promising Probiotic Candidate? J. Funct. Foods 2017, 37, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Guarner, F.; Perdigon, G.; Corthier, G.; Salminen, S.; Koletzko, B.; Morelli, L. Should Yoghurt Cultures be Considered Probiotic? Br. J. Nutr. 2005, 93, 783–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  245. Taj, R.; Masud, T.; Sohail, A.; Sammi, S.; Naz, R.; Khanal, B.K.S.; Nawaz, M.A. In Vitro Screening of EPS-Producing Streptococcus thermophilus Strains for Their Probiotic Potential from Dahi. Food Sci Nutr. 2022, 10, 2347–2359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  246. Altermann, E.; Russell, W.M.; Azcarate-Peril, M.A.; Barrangou, R.; Buck, B.L.; McAuliffe, O.; Souther, N.; Dobson, A.; Duong, T.; Callanan, M.; et al. Complete Genome Sequence of the Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacterium Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 3906–3912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Gilliland, S.E.; Speck, M.L.; Morgan, C.G. Detection of Lactobacillus acidophilus in Feces of Humans, Pigs, and Chickens. Appl. Microbiol. 1975, 30, 541–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Sanders, M.E.; Klaenhammer, T.R. Invited Review: The Scientific Basis of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM Functionality as a Probiotic. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Available online: www.chr-hansen.com/en/human-health-and-probiotics/our-probiotic-strains/la-5 (accessed on 28 October 2022).
  250. Wang, K.-Y.; Li, S.-N.; Liu, C.-S.; Perng, D.-S.; Su, Y.-C.; Wu, D.-C.; Jan, C.-M.; Lai, C.-H.; Wang, T.-N.; Wang, W.-M. Effects of Ingesting Lactobacillus- and Bifidobacterium-Containing Yogurt in Subjects with Colonized Helicobacter pylori. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 80, 737–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  251. Alm, L.; Ryd-Kjellen, E.; Setterberg, G.; Blomquist, L. Effect of a New Fermented Milk Product “CULTURA” on Constipation in Geriatric Patients. In 1st Lactic Acid Bacteria Computer Conference Proceedings; Horizon Scientific Press: Norfolk, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  252. Laake, K.O.; Bjørneklett, A.; Aamodt, G.; Aabakken, L.; Jacobsen, M.; Bakka, A.; Vatn, M.H. Outcome of Four Weeks’ Intervention with Probiotics on Symptoms and Endoscopic Appearance after Surgical Reconstruction with a J-Configurated Ileal-Pouch-Anal-Anastomosis in Ulcerative Colitis. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2005, 40, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  253. Gatt, M.; Anderson, A.D.G.; Reddy, B.S.; Hayward-Sampson, P.; Tring, I.C.; Macfie, J. Randomized Clinical Trial of Multimodal Optimization of Surgical Care in Patients Undergoing Major Colonic Resection. Br. J. Surg. 2005, 92, 1354–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  254. Tonucci, L.B.; Olbrich Dos Santos, K.M.; Licursi de Oliveira, L.; Rocha Ribeiro, S.M.; Duarte Martino, H.S. Clinical Application of Probiotics in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 36, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  255. Ejtahed, H.S.; Mohtadi-Nia, J.; Homayouni-Rad, A.; Niafar, M.; Asghari-Jafarabadi, M.; Mofid, V. Probiotic Yogurt Improves Antioxidant Status in Type 2 Diabetic Patients. Nutrition 2012, 28, 539–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  256. Rezazadeh, L.; Alipour, B.; Jafarabadi, M.A.; Behrooz, M.; Gargari, B.P. Daily Consumption Effects of Probiotic Yogurt Containing Lactobacillus acidophilus La5 and Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 on Oxidative Stress in Metabolic Syndrome Patients. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2021, 41, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Chiu, H.-F.; Fang, C.-Y.; Shen, Y.-C.; Venkatakrishnan, K.; Wang, C.-K. Efficacy of Probiotic Milk Formula on Blood Lipid and Intestinal Function in Mild Hypercholesterolemic Volunteers: A Placebo-Control, Randomized Clinical Trial. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2021, 13, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Tabasco, R.; García-Cayuela, T.; Peláez, C.; Requena, T. Lactobacillus acidophilus La-5 Increases Lactacin B Production When it Senses Live Target Bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 132, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Amiri, S.; Mokarram, R.R.; Khiabani, M.S.; Bari, M.R.; Khaledabad, M.A. In Situ Production of Conjugated Linoleic Acid by Bifidobacterium lactis BB12 and Lactobacillus acidophilus LA5 in Milk Model Medium. LWT 2020, 132, 109933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Ondee, T.; Pongpirul, K.; Visitchanakun, P.; Saisorn, W.; Kanacharoen, S.; Wongsaroj, L.; Kullapanich, C.; Ngamwongsatit, N.; Settachaimongkon, S.; Somboonna, N.; et al. Lactobacillus acidophilus LA5 Improves Saturated Fat-Induced Obesity Mouse Model through the Enhanced Intestinal Akkermansia muciniphila. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Kajimoto, O.; Kurosaki, T.; Mizutani, J.; Ikeda, N.; Kaneko, K.; Aihara, K.; Yabune, M.; Nakamura, Y. Antihypertensive Effects of Liquid Yogurts Containing “Lactotripeptides (VPP, IPP)” in Mild Hypertensive Subjects. J. Nutr. Food 2002, 5, 55–66. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  262. Yamamura, S.; Morishima, H.; Kumano-go, T.; Suganuma, N.; Matsumoto, H.; Adachi, H.; Sigedo, Y.; Mikami, A.; Kai, T.; Masuyama, A.; et al. The Effect of Lactobacillus helveticus Fermented Milk on Sleep and Health Perception in Elderly Subjects. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2009, 63, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Cayuela, C.; Dugas, N.N.; Postaire, E. Selection and Uses of Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains Modulating Non-Specific Immunity. U.S. Patent No. 7,183,108 B1, 27 February 2007. [Google Scholar]
  264. Klewicka, E.; Cukrowska, B.; Libudzisz, Z.; Śliżewska, K.; Motyl, I. Changes in Gut Microbiota in Children with Atopic Dermatitis Administered the Bacteria Lactobacillus casei DN—114001. Polish J. Microbiol. 2011, 60, 329–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Tan-Lim, C.S.C.; Esteban-Ipac, N.A.R.; Mantaring, J.B.V., III; Yen, E.C.S.; Recto, M.S.T.; Sison, O.T.; Alejandria, M.M. Comparative Effectiveness of Probiotic Strains for the Treatment of Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2021, 32, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  266. Agarwal, K.N.; Bhasin, S.K.; Faridi, M.M.A.; Mathur, M.; Gupta, S. Lactobacillus casei in the Control of Acute Diarrhea—A Pilot Study. Indian Pediatr. 2001, 38, 905–909. [Google Scholar]
  267. Guillemard, E.; Tondu, F.; Lacoin, F.; Schrezenmeir, J. Consumption of a Fermented Dairy Product Containing the Probiotic Lactobacillus casei DN-114 001 Reduces the Duration of Respiratory Infections in the Elderly in a Randomised Controlled Trial. Br. J. Nutr. 2010, 103, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  268. Marcos, A.; Wärnberg, J.; Nova, E.; Gómez, S.; Alvarez, A.; Alvarez, R.; Mateos, J.A.; Cobo, J.M. The Effect of Milk Fermented by Yogurt Cultures Plus Lactobacillus casei DN-114001 on the Immune Response of Subjects under Academic Examination Stress. Eur. J. Nutr. 2004, 43, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Tamime, A.Y.; Hassan, A.; Earnworth, E.; Toba, T. Structure of Fermented Milks. In Structure of Dairy Products; Tamime, A.Y., Ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 134–169. [Google Scholar]
  270. Akuzawa, R.; Surono, I.S. Fermented milks: Asia. In Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences; Roginski, H., Fuquay, J.W., Fox, P.F., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2003; Volume 2, pp. 1045–1049. [Google Scholar]
  271. Yasuda, E.; Serata, M.; Sako, T. Suppressive Effect on Activation of Macrophages by Lactobacillus casei Strain Shirota Genes Determining the Synthesis of Cell Wall-Associated Polysaccharides. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 4746–4755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  272. Kato-Kataoka, A.; Nishida, K.; Takada, M.; Suda, K.; Kawai, M.; Shimizu, K.; Kushiro, A.; Hoshi, R.; Watanabe, O.; Igarashi, T.; et al. Fermented Milk Containing Lactobacilli casei Strain Shirota Prevents the Onset of Physical Symptoms in Medical Students under Academic Examination Stress. Benef. Microbes 2016, 7, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Gorbach, S.L.; Goldin, B.R. Lactobacillus Strains and Methods of Selection. U.S. Patent 4839281, 13 June 1989. [Google Scholar]
  274. Gorbach, S.L.; Goldin, B.R. L. acidophilus Strains. U.S. Patent 5032399, 16 July 1991. [Google Scholar]
  275. Kankainen, M.; Paulin, L.; Tynkkynen, S.; von Ossowski, I.; Reunanen, J.; Partanen, P.; Satokari, R.; Vesterlund, S.; Hendrickx, A.P.A.; Lebeer, S.; et al. Comparative Genomic Analysis of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG Reveals Pili Containing a Human-Mucus Binding Protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 17193–17198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Capurso, L. Thirty Years of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG A Review. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2019, 53, S1–S41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Szajewska, H.; Hojsak, I. Health Benefits of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis BB-12 in Children. Postgrad. Med. 2020, 132, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  278. Dargenio, V.N.; Cristofori, F.; Dargenio, C.; Giordano, P.; Indrio, F.; Celano, G.; Francavilla, R. Use of Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in Paediatric Gastrointestinal Disorders: An Updated Review. Benef. Microbes 2022, 13, 221–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  279. Li, C.; Song, J.; Kwok, L.-Y.; Wang, J.; Dong, Y.; Yu, H.; Hou, Q.; Zhang, H.; Chen, Y. Influence of Lactobacillus plantarum on Yogurt Fermentation Properties and Subsequent Changes during Postfermentation Storage. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 2512–2525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  280. Muganga, L.; Liu, X.; Tian, F.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W. Screening for Lactic Acid Bacteria Based on Antihyperglycaemic and Probiotic Potential and Application in Symbiotic Set Yoghurt. J. Func. Foods 2015, 16, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Garrigues, C.; Johansen, E.; Pedersen, M.B. Complete Genome Sequence of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12, a Widely Consumed Probiotic Strain. J. Bacteriol. 2010, 192, 2467–2468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  282. Jungersen, M.; Wind, A.; Johansen, E.; Christensen, J.E.; Stuer-Lauridsen, B.; Eskesen, D. The Science Behind the Probiotic Strain Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12®. Microorganisms 2014, 2, 92–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  283. Meng, H.C.; Ba, Z.Y.; Lee, Y.J.; Peng, J.Y.; Lin, J.L.; Fleming, J.A.; Furumoto, E.J.; Roberts, R.F.; Kris-Etherton, P.M.; Rogers, C.J. Consumption of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 in Yogurt Reduced Expression of TLR-2 on Peripheral Blood-Derived Monocytes and Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine Secretion in Young Adults. Eur. J. Nutr. 2017, 56, 649–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Gill, H.S.; Smart, J.B.; Gopal, P.K. Immunity Enhancing Lactic Acid Bacteria. U.S. Patent 6379663, 30 April 2002. [Google Scholar]
  285. Morovic, W.; Roos, P.; Zabel, B.; Hidalgo-Cantabrana, C.; Kiefer, A.; Barrangou, R. Transcriptional and Functional Analysis of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Exposure to Tetracycline. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e01999-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  286. Magro, D.O.; de Oliveira, L.M.R.; Bernasconi, I.; Ruela, M.S.; Credidio, L.; Barcelos, I.K.; Leal, R.F.; Ayrizono, M.L.S.; Fagundes, J.J.; Teixeira, L.B.; et al. Effect of Yogurt Containing Polydextrose, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and Bifidobacterium lactis HN019: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study in Chronic Constipation. Nutr. J. 2014, 13, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Miller, L.E.; Zimmermann, A.K.; Ouwehand, A.C. Contemporary Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Probiotic Consumption on Gastrointestinal Transit. World J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 5122–5131. Available online: http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i21/5122.htm (accessed on 28 October 2022). [CrossRef]
  288. Cheng, J.; Laitila, A.; Ouwehand, A.C. Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis HN019 Effects on Gut Health: A Review. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 790561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  289. Tabbers, M.M.; Chmielewska, A.; Roseboom, M.G.; Boudet, C.; Perrin, C.; Szajewska, H.; Benninga, M.A. Effect of the Consumption of a Fermented Dairy Product Containing Bifidobacterium lactis DN-173 010 on Constipation in Childhood: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial (NTRTC: 1571). BMC Pediatr. 2009, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  290. Guyonnet, D.; Chassany, O.; Ducrotte, P.; Picard, C.; Mouret, M.; Mercier, C.-H.; Matuchansky, C. Effect of a Fermented Milk Containing Bifidobacterium animalis DN-173 010 on the Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptoms in Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Adults in Primary Care: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007, 26, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Meance, S.; Cayuela, C.; Turchet, P.; Raimondi, A.; Lucas, C.; Antoine, J.-M. A Fermented Milk with a Bifidobacterium Probiotic Strain DN-173 010 Shortened Oro-Fecal Gut Transit Time in Elderly. Microb. Ecol. Health Dis. 2001, 13, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Veiga, P.; Chambaud, I.; Khlebnikov, A.; Glimcher, L.H.; Garrett, W.S. Method for Reducing Gastro-intestinal Inflammation using Bifidobacterium animalis Bacteria or a Fermented Dairy Product Comprising Such Bacteria. U.S. Patent 8,685,388 B2, 1 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
  293. Farmer, S. Inhibition of Pathogens by Probiotic Bacteria. U.S. Patent 6,849,256, 1 February 2005. [Google Scholar]
  294. Drago, L.; De Vecchi, E. Should Lactobacillus sporogenes and Bacillus coagulans Have a Future? J. Chemother. 2009, 21, 371–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Dos Santos, W.L.; da Silva, E.F.T.; da Silva, M.E.B.; Bomfim, A.G.J.; da Silva, E.G.; Medeiros, M.d.B.C.L.; Oliveira, J.T.C.; Moreira, K.A. Bacillus subtilis: A Probiotic Promiser in Yogurt Production with Antioxidant Potential. Acta Sci. Nutr. Health 2019, 3, 115–121. [Google Scholar]
  296. Gibson, G.R.; Roberfroid, M.B. Dietary Modulation of the Human Colonic Microbiota: Introducing the Concept of Prebiotics. J. Nutr. 1995, 125, 1401–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Gibson, G.R.; Hutkins, R.; Sanders, M.E.; Prescott, S.L.; Reimer, R.A.; Salminen, S.J.; Scott, K.; Stanton, C.; Swanson, K.S.; Cani, P.D.; et al. 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. 2017, 14, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  298. Das, K.; Choudhary, R.; Thompson-Witrick, K.A. Effects of New Technology on the Current Manufacturing Process of Yogurt—To Increase the Overall Marketability of Yogurt. LWT 2019, 108, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Global Prebiotic Association. 2022. Available online: https://prebioticassociation.org/prebiotic-resources/ (accessed on 31 August 2022).
  300. Gibson, G.R.; Roberfroid, M.B. Handbook of Prebiotics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  301. Swanson, K.S.; Gibson, G.R.; Hutkins, R.; Reimer, R.A.; Reid, G.; Verbeke, K.; Scott, K.P.; Holscher, H.D.; Azad, M.B.; Delzenne, N.M.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) Consensus Statement on the Definition and Scope of Synbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 17, 687–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. González-Herrera, S.M.; Bermúdez-Quiñones, G.; Ochoa-Martínez, L.A.; Rutiaga- Quiñones, O.M.; Gallegos Infante, J.A. Synbiotics: A Technological Approach in Food Applications. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 811–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  303. Sarfraz, F.; Farooq, U.; Shafi, A.; Hayat, Z.; Akram, K.; Rehman, H.-U. Hypolipidaemic Effects of Synbiotic Yoghurt in Rabbits. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2019, 72, 545–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Tahmasebi, M.; Mofid, V. Innovative Synbiotic Fat-Free Yogurts Enriched with Bioactive Extracts of the Red Macroalgae Laurencia caspica: Formulation Optimization, Probiotic Viability, and Critical Quality Characteristics. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2021, 15, 4876–4887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Sohrabpour, S.; Bari, M.R.; Alizadeh, M.; Amiri, S. Investigation of the Rheological, Microbial, and Physicochemical Properties of Developed Synbiotic Yogurt Containing Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5, Honey, and Cinnamon Extract. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2021, 45, e15323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Mousavi, M.; Heshmati, A.; Garmakhany, A.D.; Vahidinia, A.; Taheri, M. Optimization of the Viability of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Physico-Chemical, Textural and Sensorial Characteristics of Flaxseed-Enriched Stirred Probiotic Yogurt by Using Response Surface Methodology. LWT 2019, 102, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Setiarto, R.H.B.; Widhyastuti, N.; Risty, A.R. The Effect of Variation Concentration White Oyster Mushroom Flour for Quality Yogurt Mushroom Taro Synbiotic during Storage. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, The 3rd International Conference on Agriculture and Rural Development, Serang, Indonesia, 30 November 2021; Volume 978, p. 012048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. El-Komaily, R.M.; El-Batawy, O.I.; Aumara, I.E. Impact of Maltodextrin and Inulin on Synbiotic Fermented Milk Production. Arab. Univ. J. Agric. Sci. 2022, 30, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  309. Ban, Q.; Cheng, J.; Sun, X.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, S.; Song, X.; Guo, M. Effects of a Synbiotic Yogurt Using Monk Fruit Extract as Sweetener on Glucose Regulation and Gut Microbiota in Rats with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 2956–2968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Khairani, A.F.; Islami, U.; Syamsunarno, M.R.A.; Lantika, U.A. Synbiotic Purple Sweet Potato Yogurt Ameliorate Lipid Metabolism in High Fat Diet Mice Model. Biomed. Pharmacol. J. 2020, 13, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  311. Ozcan, T.; Karaman, S. Effect of Acacia Exudate Gum on Milk Gel Fermentation of Flavoured Synbiotic Yoghurt Enriched with Daucus carota L. ssp. sativus var. atrorubens Alef fibre. Mljekarstvo 2021, 71, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Fathy, H.M.; Abd El-Maksoud, A.A.; Cheng, W.; Elshaghabee, F.M.F. Value-Added Utilization of Citrus Peels in Improving Functional Properties and Probiotic Viability of Acidophilus-bifidus-thermophilus (ABT)-Type Synbiotic Yoghurt during Cold Storage. Foods 2022, 11, 2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. Shu, G.; Tian, M.; Cao, B.; Wang, C.; Xin, N. Effects of Stachyose on Synbiotic Yogurt Obtained from Goat Milk with Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei. Acta Univ. Cibiniensis–Ser. E Food Technol. 2018, 22, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  314. Aryana, K.J.; McGrew, P. Quality Attributes of Yogurt with Lactobacillus casei and Various Prebiotics. LWT 2007, 40, 1808–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. Dias, S.S.; de Souza Vergílio, D.; Pereira, A.M.; Klososki, S.J.; Marcolino, V.A.; da Cruz, R.M.S.; Costa, G.N.; Barão, C.E.; Pimentel, T.C. Probiotic Greek Yogurt: Effect of the Addition of Prebiotic Fat Substitutes on the Physicochemical Characteristics, Probiotic Survival, and Sensory Acceptance. J. Dairy Res. 2021, 88, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  316. Martinez-Martinez, M.U.; Vázquez-Maldonado, D.; Ratering, S.; Godínez-Hernández, C.; Ortiz-Basurto, R.I.; Soria-Guerra, R.E.; Schneider, B.; Juárez-Flores, B.I.; Portales-Pérez, D.P.; Schnell, S.; et al. Fructans from Agave Enhance Probiotic Yoghurt by Modulating Gut Microbiota on Children with Overweight or Obesity. Food Biosci. 2022, 46, 101516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Safdari, Y.; Vazifedoost, M.; Didar, Z.; Hajirostamloo, B. The Effect of Banana Fiber and Banana Peel Fiber on the Chemical and Rheological Properties of Symbiotic Yogurt Made from Camel Milk. Int. J. Food Sci. 2021, 2021, 5230882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  318. Zahid, H.F.; Ranadheera, C.S.; Fang, Z.; Ajlouni, S. Functional and Healthy Yogurts Fortified with Probiotics and Fruit Peel Powders. Fermentation 2022, 8, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  319. Li, H.; Liu, T.; Yang, J.; Wang, R.; Li, Y.; Feng, Y.; Liu, D.; Li, H.; Yu, J. Effect of a Microencapsulated Synbiotic Product on Microbiology, Microstructure, Textural and Rheological Properties of Stirred Yogurt. LWT 2021, 152, 112302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  320. Garavand, F.; Daly, D.F.M.; Gómez-Mascaraque, L.G. Biofunctional, Structural, and Tribological Attributes of GABA-Enriched Probiotic Yoghurts Containing Lacticaseibacillus paracasei Alone or in Combination with Prebiotics. Int. Dairy J. 2022, 129, 105348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  321. Madhu, A.N.; Amrutha, N.; Prapulla, S.G. Characterization and Antioxidant Property of Probiotic and Synbiotic Yogurts. Probiotics Antimicro. Prot. 2012, 4, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  322. Jouki, M.; Khazaei, N.; Rezaei, F.; Taghavian-Saeid, R. Production of Synbiotic Freeze-Dried Yoghurt Powder Using Microencapsulation and Cryopreservation of L. plantarum in Alginate-Skim Milk Microcapsules. Int. Dairy J. 2021, 122, 105133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  323. Wattananapakasem, I.; van Valenberg, H.J.F.; Fogliano, V.; Costabile, A.; Suwannaporn, P. Synbiotic Microencapsulation from Slow Digestible Colored Rice and its Effect on Yoghurt Quality. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 1111–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  324. Mohan, A.; Hadi, J.; Gutierrez-Maddox, N.; Li, Y.; Leung, I.K.H.; Gao, Y.; Shu, Q.; Quek, S.-Y. Sensory, Microbiological and Physicochemical Characterisation of Functional Manuka Honey Yogurts Containing Probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri DPC16. Foods 2020, 9, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  325. Ali, H.I.; Dey, M.; Alzubaidi, A.K.; Alneamah, S.J.A.; Altemimi, A.B.; Pratap-Singh, A. Effect of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Supplementation on Probiotic Yoghurt: Physicochemical Properties, Microbial Content, and Sensory Attributes. Foods 2021, 10, 2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  326. Bevilacqua, A.; Speranza, B.; Campaniello, D.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R.; Lamacchia, C. A Preliminary Report on the Use of the Design of Experiments for the Production of a Synbiotic Yogurt Supplemented with Gluten Friendly™ Flour and Bifidobacterium infantis. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  327. Zahed, O.; Khosravi-Darani, K.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Mohammadi, A. Bacterial Conjugated Linoleic Acid Bio-Fortification of Synbiotic Yogurts Using Propionibacterium freudenreichii as Adjunct Cultures. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2021, 33, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  328. Taverniti, V.; Guglielmetti, S. The Immunomodulatory Properties of Probiotic Microorganisms Beyond their Viability (Ghost Probiotics: Proposal of Paraprobiotic Concept). Genes Nutr. 2011, 6, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  329. De Almada, C.N.; Almada, C.N.; Martinez, R.C.R.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Paraprobiotics: Evidences on Their Ability to Modify Biological Responses, Inactivation Methods, and Perspectives on their Application in Foods. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 58, 96–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  330. Guimarães, J.T.; Balthazar, C.F.; Scudino, H.; Pimentel, T.C.; Esmerino, E.A.; Ashokkumar, M.; Freitas, M.Q.; Cruz, A.G. High-Intensity Ultrasound: A Novel Technology for the Development of Probiotic and Prebiotic Dairy Products. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 57, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  331. Barros, C.P.; Pires, R.P.S.; Guimarães, J.T.; Abud, Y.K.D.; Almada, C.N.; Pimentel, T.C.; Sant’Anna, C.; De-Melo, L.D.B.; Duarte, M.C.K.H.; Silva, M.C.; et al. Ohmic Heating as a Method of Obtaining Paraprobiotics: Impacts on Cell Structure and Viability by Flow Cytometry. Food Res. Int. 2021, 140, 110061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  332. Pereira, R.N.; Teixeira, J.A.; Vicente, A.A.; Cappato, L.P.; Ferreira, M.V.d.S.; Rocha, R.d.S.; Cruz, A.G.d. Ohmic Heating for the Dairy Industry: A Potential Technology to Develop Probiotic Dairy Foods in Association with Modifications of Whey Protein Structure. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2018, 22, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  333. Parvarei, M.M.; Fazeli, M.R.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Nezhad, S.S.; Mortazavi, S.A.; Golabchifar, A.A.; Khorshidian, N. Comparative Effects of Probiotic and Paraprobiotic Addition on Microbiological, Biochemical and Physical Properties of Yogurt. Food Res. Int. 2021, 140, 110030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  334. Parvarei, M.M.; Khorshidian, N.; Fazeli, M.R.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Nezhad, S.S.; Mortazavi, S.A. Comparative Effect of Probiotic and Paraprobiotic Addition on Physicochemical, Chemometric and Microstructural Properties of Yogurt. LWT 2021, 144, 111177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  335. Parvarei, M.M.; Fazeli, M.R.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Nezhad, S.S.; Mortazavi, S.A. Comparative Effect of Probiotic and Paraprobiotic Addition on Rheological and Sensory Properties of Yoghurt. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2021, 74, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. Salminen, S.; Collado, M.C.; Endo, A.; Hill, C.; Lebeer, S.; Quigley, E.M.M.; Sanders, M.E.; Shamir, R.; Swann, J.R.; Szajewska, H.; et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) Consensus Statement on the Definition and Scope of Postbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 18, 649–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Depommier, C.; Everard, A.; Druart, C.; Plovier, H.; Van Hul, M.; Vieira-Silva, S.; Falony, G.; Raes, J.; Maiter, D.; Delzenne, N.M.; et al. Supplementation with Akkermansia muciniphila in Overweight and Obese Human Volunteers: A Proof-of-Concept Exploratory Study. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 1096–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  338. Darwish, M.S.; Qiu, L.; Taher, M.A.; Zaki, A.A.; Abou-Zeid, N.A.; Dawood, D.H.; Shalabi, O.M.A.K.; Khojah, E.; Elawady, A.A. Health Benefits of Postbiotics Produced by E. coli Nissle 1917 in Functional Yogurt Enriched with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.). Fermentation 2022, 8, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  339. Zendeboodi, F.; Khorshidian, N.; Mortazavian, A.M.; da Cruz, A.G. Probiotic: Conceptualization from a New Approach. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 32, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  340. Dinan, T.G.; Stanton, C.; Cryan, J.F. Psychobiotics: A Novel Class of Psychotropic. Biol. Psychiatry 2013, 74, 720–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  341. Rogers, G.B.; Keating, D.J.; Young, R.L.; Wong, M.-L.; Licinio, J.; Wesselingh, S. From Gut Dysbiosis to Altered Brain Function and Mental Illness: Mechanisms and Pathways. Mol. Psychiatry 2016, 21, 738–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  342. Toro-Barbosa, M.D.; Hurtado-Romero, A.; Garcia-Amezquita, L.E.; García-Cayuela, T. Psychobiotics: Mechanisms of Action, Evaluation Methods and Effectiveness in Applications with Food Products. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  343. Baker, D.B. Preparation of a Low Calorie, Low Fat Fruit-Containing Yogurt. U.S. Patent 4410549, 18 October 1983. [Google Scholar]
  344. Pachekrepapol, U.; Somboonchai, N.; Krimjai, W. Physicochemical, Rheological, and Microbiological Properties of Lactose-Free Functional Yogurt Supplemented with Fructooligosaccharides. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2021, 45, e15017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  345. Chen, S.; Chen, L.; Chen, L.; Ren, X.; Ge, H.; Li, B.; Ma, G.; Ke, X.; Zhu, J.; Li, L.; et al. Potential Probiotic Characterization of Lactobacillus reuteri from Traditional Chinese Highland Barley Wine and Application for Room-Temperature-Storage Drinkable Yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 5780–5788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  346. Mikky, S.S.; Ibrahim, E.M.A.; Elbarbary, H.A.; Mohamed, H.A. Impact of Lactobacillus gasseri and its Bacteriocin on the Quality of Drinkable Yoghurt. Alex. J. Vet. Sci. 2021, 69, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  347. Walter, M.; Brzozowski, B.; Adamczak, M. Effect of Supercritical Extract from Black Poplar and Basket Willow on the Quality of Natural and Probiotic Drinkable Yogurt. Animals 2021, 11, 2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  348. Shehata, M.G.; Abd-Rabou, H.S.; El-Sohaimy, S.A. Plant Extracts in Probiotic Encapsulation: Evaluation of their Effects on Strain Survivability in Juice and Drinkable Yoghurt during Storage and an in vitro Gastrointestinal Model. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 13, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  349. Allgeyer, L.C.; Miller, M.J.; Lee, S.-Y. Sensory and Microbiological Quality of Yogurt Drinks with Prebiotics and Probiotics. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 4471–4479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  350. Ur-rehman, S.; Kopesky, B.; Doelman, T. Methods for Making Shelf-Stable Cultured Dairy Products. U.S. Patent 10952450, 23 March 2021. [Google Scholar]
  351. Ur-rehman, S.; Doelman, T.P. Methods for Making High-Protein Greek Yogurt using Membrane Systems Before and After Fermentation. U.S. Patent 11051526, 6 July 2021. [Google Scholar]
  352. Imer, S. Frozen Yogurt Process. U.S. Patent 10117445, 6 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  353. Bunce, M.G.; Dave, R.I. High Protein Yogurts. U.S. Patent 20150342208, 3 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
  354. Cajigas, S. Instant Yogurt Composition and Process. U.S. Patent 4956185, 11 September 1990. [Google Scholar]
  355. Peterson, S.; Welch, F.; Burkholder, T.; Jager, N.; Aleman, G. Freeze-Dried, Aerated Dairy or Dairy-Substitute Compositions and Methods of Making Thereof. U.S. Patent 10159261, 25 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
  356. Pannell, L.K.; Merkwae, L. Bite Sized Refrigerated Yogurt Products. U.S. Patent 20110287147, 24 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
  357. Yang, G.; Elegbede, J.; Prodduk, V. Snack Bars and Methods of Making. U.S. Patent 11324241, 26 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  358. Dwivedi, B.K. Fruit Snack with Probiotics and Method of Manufacturing a Fruit Snack with Probiotics. U.S. Patent 11317640, 3 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  359. Gutknecht, J.R.; Ovitt, J.B. Yogurt-Cheese Compositions. U.S. Patent 8486476, 16 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
  360. Bauer, A.M.; Sambor, B. Food Products Containing Powdered Yogurt, Whole Grains and Fruit. U.S. Patent 20140287126, 25 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  361. Diermeier, D.J.; Faa, P.; Wilson, E. Yogurt Crisp and Method for Making Same. U.S. Patent 20190029312, 31 January 2019. [Google Scholar]
  362. Atwaa, E.S.H.; Shahein, M.R.; El-Sattar, E.S.A.; Hijazy, H.H.A.; Albrakati, A.; Elmahallawy, E.K. Bioactivity, Physicochemical and Sensory Properties of Probiotic Yoghurt Made from Whole Milk Powder Reconstituted in Aqueous Fennel Extract. Fermentation 2022, 8, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  363. Arab, R.; Freidja, M.L.; Oomah, B.D.; Benali, S.; Madani, K.; Boulekbache-Makhlouf, L. Quality Parameters, Probiotic Viability and Sensory Properties of Probiotic Stirred Sesame Yogurt. Ann. Univ. Dunarea De Jos Galati Fascicle VI Food Technol. 2020, 44, 9–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  364. Katke, S.D.; Deshpande, H.W. Studies on Development of Fibre Rich Probiotic Frozen Yogurt. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. 2022, 41, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  365. Ibrahim, M.; Barakova, N.; Jõudu, I. Enrichment of the Low-Fat Yoghurt with Oat β-Glucan and EPS-Producing Bifidobacterium bifidum Improves its Quality. Agron. Res. 2020, 18, 1689–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  366. Gunenc, A.; Alswiti, C.; Hosseinian, F. Wheat Bran Dietary Fiber: Promising Source of Prebiotics with Antioxidant Potential. J. Food Res. 2017, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  367. He, J.; Han, Y.; Liu, M.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Yang, X. Effect of 2 Types of Resistant Starches on the Quality of Yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3956–3964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  368. Sidhu, M.K.; Lyu, F.; Sharkie, T.P.; Ajlouni, S.; Ranadheera, C.S. Probiotic Yogurt Fortified with Chickpea Flour: Physico-Chemical Properties and Probiotic Survival during Storage and Simulated Gastrointestinal Transit. Foods 2020, 9, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  369. Aryana, K.J.; Plauche, S.; Nia, T. Prebiotic and Probiotic Fat Free Yogurt. Milchwissenschaft 2007, 62, 295–298. [Google Scholar]
  370. Erkaya-Kotan, T. In Vitro Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE)-Inhibitory and Antioxidant Activity of Probiotic Yogurt Incorporated with Orange Fibre during Storage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 2343–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  371. Sendra, E.; Fayos, P.; Lario, Y.; Fernández-López, J.; Sayas-Barberá, E.; Pérez-Alvarez, J.A. Incorporation of Citrus Fibers in Fermented Milk Containing Probiotic Bacteria. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  372. Atik, D.S.; Coşkun, F. Some Properties of Probiotic Yoghurt Produced for Babies by Adding Fruit Puree, Containing B. infantis, B. bifidum, B. longum, L. paracasei. Turkish J. Agr. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 9, 1840–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  373. Sun, X.; Wang, Y.R.; Ding, R.X.; Ming, L.Y.; Yue, X.Q.; Wu, J.R. Development of Probiotic Dragon Fruit Yogurt. Food Res. Dev. 2018, 39, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
  374. Silva, F.A.; Queiroga, R.d.C.R.d.E.; de Souza, E.L.; Voss, G.B.; Borges, G.d.S.C.; Lima, M.d.S.; Pintado, M.M.E.; Vasconcelos, M.A.d.S. Incorporation of Phenolic-Rich Ingredients from Integral Valorization of Isabel Grape Improves the Nutritional, Functional, and Sensory Characteristics of Probiotic Goat Milk Yogurt. Food Chem. 2022, 369, 130957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  375. Muchiri, M.N.; McCartney, A.L.; Methven, L. Sensory Profile and Consumer Preference of Novel Probiotic Yoghurt Enriched with Orange Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas). Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2020, 20, 16471–16489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  376. Ertem, H.; Çakmakçi, S. Shelf Life and Quality of Probiotic Yogurt Produced with Lactobacillus acidophilus and Gobdin. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 53, 776–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  377. Al-Aswad, S.; Helal, A.; Shamsia, S.M.; Awad, S. Quality and Rheological Properties of Sweetened Yoghurt and Bio-Yoghurt Enriched with Pomegranate Juice. Egyptian J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 46, 41–50. [Google Scholar]
  378. Cliff, M.A.; Fan, L.; Sanford, K.; Stanich, K.; Doucette, C.; Raymond, N. Descriptive Analysis and Early-Stage Consumer Acceptance of Yogurts Fermented with Carrot Juices. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 4160–4172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  379. Song, H.; Ma, L.H.; Chen, X.H.; Lyu, Q.; Gu, Y. Study on Technology and Inoxidability of Complex Probiotics Yogurt of Kiwi Fruit and Jasmine Flower. China Dairy Ind. 2017, 45, 61–64. [Google Scholar]
  380. Illupapalayam, V.V.; Smith, S.C.; Gamlath, S. Consumer Acceptability and Antioxidant Potential of Probiotic-Yogurt with Spices. LWT 2014, 55, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  381. Yangilar, F.; Yildiz, P.O. Effects of Using Combined Essential Oils on Quality Parameters of Bio-Yogurt. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2018, 42, e13332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  382. Mehdizadeh, T.; Langroodi, A.M.; Shakouri, R.; Khorshidi, S. Physicochemical, Microbiological, and Sensory Characteristics of Probiotic Yogurt Enhanced with Anethum graveolens essential oil. J. Food Saf. 2019, 39, e12683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  383. Azizkhani, M.; Parsaeimehr, M. Probiotics Survival, Antioxidant Activity and Sensory Properties of Yogurt Flavored with Herbal Essential Oils. Int. Food Res. J. 2018, 25, 921–927. [Google Scholar]
  384. Coskun, F.; Dirican, L.K. Effects of Pine Honey on the Physicochemical, Microbiological and Sensory Properties of Probiotic Yoghurt. Food Sci. Technol Camp. 2019, 39 (Suppl. 2), 616–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  385. Kavas, N. Functional Probiotic Yoghurt Production with Royal Jelly Fortification and Determination of Some Properties. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2022, 28, 100519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  386. Narayana, R.; Kale, A. Functional Probiotic Yoghurt with Spirulina. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. 2019, 38, 311–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  387. Aryana, K.J.; Olson, D.W. A 100-year Review: Yogurt and Other Cultured Dairy Products. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 9987–10013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  388. Aziz, G.; Zaidi, A.; Bakht, U.; Parveen, N.; Ahmed, I.; Haider, Z.; Muhammad, T. Microbial Safety and Probiotic Potential of Packaged Yogurt Products in Pakistan. J. Food Saf. 2020, 40, e12741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  389. Rad, A.H.; Javadi, M.; Kafil, H.S.; Pirouzian, H.R.; Khaleghi, M. The Safety Perspective of Probiotic and Non-Probiotic Yoghurts: A Review. Food Qual. Safety 2019, 3, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  390. Montaseri, H.; Arjmandtalab, S.; Dehghanzadeh, G.; Karami, S.; Razmjoo, M.M.; Sayadi, M.; Oryan, A. Effect of Production and Storage of Probiotic Yogurt on Aflatoxin M1 Residue. J. Food Qual. Haz. Cont. 2014, 1, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  391. Bernardeau, M.; Vernoux, J.P.; Henri-Dubernet, S.; Guéguen, M. Safety Assessment of Dairy Microorganisms: The Lactobacillus Genus. Int. J. Food Micro. 2008, 126, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  392. Sims, W. A Pathogenic Lactobacillus. J. Path. Bact. 1964, 87, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  393. Meile, L.; Le Blay, G.; Thierry, A. Safety Assessment of Dairy Microorganisms: Propionibacterium and Bifidobacterium. Int. J. Food Micro. 2008, 126, 316–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  394. Van den Nieuwboer, M.; Claassen, E. Dealing with the Remaining Controversies of Probiotic Safety. Benef. Microbes 2019, 10, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  395. Callaway, L.K.; McIntyre, H.D.; Barrett, H.L.; Foxcroft, K.; Tremellen, A.; Lingwood, B.E.; Tobin, J.M.; Wilkinson, S.; Kothari, A.; Morrison, M.; et al. Probiotics for the Prevention of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Overweight and Obese Women: Findings from the SPRING Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  396. Bongaerts, G.P.A.; Severijnen, R.S.V.M. A Reassessment of the PROPATRIA Study and its Implications for Probiotic Therapy. Nat. Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  397. Gilliland, S.E.; Speck, M.L. Instability of Lactobacillus acidophilus in Yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 1977, 60, 1394–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  398. Ng, E.W.; Yeung, M.; Tong, P.S. Effects of Yogurt Starter Cultures on the Survival of Lactobacillus acidophilus. Int. J. Food Micro. 2011, 145, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  399. Shah, N.P.; Lankaputhra, W.E.V.; Britz, M.L.; Kyle, W.S.A. Survival of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidum in Commercial Yoghurt during Refrigerated Storage. Int. Dairy J. 1995, 5, 515–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  400. Mani-López, E.; Palou, E.; López-Malo, A. Probiotic Viability and Storage Stability of Yogurts and Fermented Milks Prepared with Several Mixtures of Lactic Acid Bacteria. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 2578–2590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  401. Hekmat, S.; Soltani, H.; Reid, G. Growth and Survival of Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 in Yogurt for Use as a Functional Food. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2009, 10, 293–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  402. Kailasapathy, K.; Harmstorf, I.; Phillips, M. Survival of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis in Stirred Fruit Yogurts. LWT 2008, 41, 1317–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  403. Ferdousi, R.; Rouhi, M.; Mohammadi, R.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Khosravi-Darani, K.; Rad, A.H. Evaluation of Probiotic Survivability in Yogurt Exposed to Cold Chain Interruption. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2013, 12, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  404. Hekmat, S.; McMahon, D.J. Survival of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidum in Ice Cream for Use as a Probiotic Food. J. Dairy Sci. 1992, 75, 1415–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  405. Davidson, R.H.; Duncan, S.E.; Hackney, C.R.; Eigel, W.N.; Boling, J.W. Probiotic Culture Survival and Implications in Fermented Frozen Yogurt Characteristics. J. Dairy Sci. 2000, 83, 666–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  406. Atallah, A.A.; Ismail, E.A.; Yehia, H.M.; Elkhadragy, M.F.; Aloufi, A.S.; Gemiel, D.G. Physicochemical, Microbiological and Microstructural Characteristics of Sucrose-Free Probiotic-Frozen Yogurt during Storage. Foods 2022, 11, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  407. Reddy, M.S. Enhancement of Lactobacillus acidophilus Growth and Viability in Yogurt and Other Cultured Dairy Products. U.S. Patent 4797289, 10 January 1989. [Google Scholar]
  408. Dave, R.I.; Shah, N.P. Effectiveness of Ascorbic Acid as an Oxygen Scavenger in Improving Viabilityof Probiotic Bacteria in Yoghurts Made with Commercial Starter Cultures. Int. Dairy J. 1997, 7, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  409. Dave, R.I.; Shah, N.P. Ingredient Supplementation Effects on Viability of Probiotic Bacteria in Yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 1998, 81, 2804–2816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  410. Costa, G.M.; Paula, M.M.; Barão, C.E.; Klososki, S.J.; Bonafé, E.G.; Visentainer, J.V.; Cruz, A.G.; Pimentel, T.C. Yoghurt Added with Lactobacillus casei and Sweetened with Natural Sweeteners and/or Prebiotics: Implications on Quality Parameters and Probiotic Survival. Int. Dairy J. 2019, 97, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  411. Muzammil, H.S.; Rasco, B.; Junaid, M. Viability of Probiotics in Frozen Yogurt Supplemented with Inulin and Glycerol. Int. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2018, 7, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  412. Batista, A.L.D.; Silva, R.; Cappato, L.P.; Almada, C.N.; Garcia, R.K.A.; Silva, M.C.; Raices, R.S.L.; Arellano, D.B.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Conte Junior, C.A.; et al. Quality Parameters of Probiotic Yogurt Added to Glucose Oxidase Compared to Commercial Products through Microbiological, Physical–Chemical and Metabolic Activity Analyses. Food Res. Int. 2015, 77, 627–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  413. Gullo, M.; Zotta, T. Probiotics in Dairy Products: Microencapsulation and Delivery. In Chapter 18 in Advances in Dairy Microbial Products; Singh, J., Vyas, A., Eds.; Elsevier, Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  414. Pour, H.M.; Marhamatizadeh, M.H.; Fattahi, H. Encapsulation of Different Types of Probiotic Bacteria within Conventional/Multilayer Emulsion and its Effect on the Properties of Probiotic Yogurt. J. Food Qual. 2022, 2022, 7923899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  415. Ajlouni, S.; Ranadheera, C.S.; Chua, E.L. Encapsulation Increases the in vitro Bioaccessibility of Probiotics in Yoghurt. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2021, 74, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  416. Wu, H.; Hulbert, G.J.; Mount, J.R. Effects of Ultrasound on Milk Homogenization and Fermentation with Yogurt Starter. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2000, 1, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  417. Hussein, Z.E.H.; Silva, J.M.; Alves, E.S.; Castro, M.C.; Ferreira, C.S.R.; Chaves, M.L.C.; Bruni, A.R.d.S.; Santos, O.O. Technological Advances in Probiotic Stability in Yogurt: A Review. Res. Soc. Dev. 2021, 10, e449101220646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  418. Ayyash, M.M.; Abdalla, A.K.; AlKalbani, N.S.; Baig, M.A.; Turner, M.S.; Liu, S.-Q.; Shah, N.P. Invited Review: Characterization of New Probiotics from Dairy and Nondairy Products-Insights into Acid Tolerance, Bile Metabolism and Tolerance, and Adhesion Capability. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 8363–8379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  419. Cui, L.; Chang, S.K.C.; Nannapaneni, R. Comparative Studies on the Effect of Probiotic Additions on the Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties of Yoghurt Made from Soymilk and Cow’s Milk during Refrigeration Storage (R2). Food Control. 2021, 119, 107474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  420. Soni, R.; Jain, N.K.; Shah, V.; Soni, J.; Suthar, D.; Gohel, P. Development of Probiotic Yogurt: Effect of Strain Combination on Nutritional, Rheological, Organoleptic and Probiotic Properties. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 2038–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  421. He, J.T.; Li, W.; Deng, J.; Lin, Q.L.; Bai, J.; Zhang, L.; Fang, Y. An Insight into the Health Beneficial of Probiotics Dairy Products: A Critical Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  422. Champagne, C.P.; Gardner, N.J.; Roy, D. Challenges in the Addition of Probiotic Cultures to Foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2005, 45, 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  423. Hekmat, S.; Reid, G. Sensory Properties of Probiotic Yogurt is Comparable to Standard Yogurt. Nutr. Res. 2006, 26, 163–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  424. Hussain, I.; Rahman, A.U.; Atkinson, N. Quality Comparison of Probiotic and Natural Yogurt. Pak. J. Nutr. 2009, 8, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  425. Smith, E.B.; Wang, W.; Ghosh, V. Food Products with Yogurt Whey. U.S. Patent 11116235, 14 September 2021. [Google Scholar]
  426. Flinois, J.C.; Dando, R.; Padilla-Zakour, O.I. Effects of Replacing Buttermilk with Yogurt Acid Whey in Ranch Dressing. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 7874–7883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  427. Flinois, J.C.; Dando, R.; Padilla-Zakour, O.I. Yogurt Acid Whey Utilization for Production of Baked Goods: Pancakes and Pizza Crust. Foods 2019, 8, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  428. Yoon, A.K.; Rizvi, S.S.H. Functional, Textural, and Sensory Properties of Milk Protein Concentrate-Based Supercritical Fluid Extrudates Made with Acid Whey. Int. J. Food Prop. 2020, 23, 708–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  429. Rivera Flores, V.K.; DeMarsh, T.A.; Gibney, P.A.; Alcaine, S.D. Fermentation of Dairy-Relevant Sugars by Saccharomyces, Kluyveromyces, and Brettanomyces: An Exploratory Study with Implications for the Utilization of Acid Whey, Part II. Fermentation 2022, 8, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  430. Dufrene, A.; Park, D.; Olson, D.; Aryana, K. Survival of Lactobacillus acidophilus in Fruit Flavored Greek Yogurt Acid Whey. Food Nutr. Sci. 2021, 12, 681–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Bacteria, including postbiotics, and yeast with claimed probiotic properties, potential probiotic properties, or potential therapeutic application that have been incorporated into or isolated from yogurt or yogurt-related products.
Table 1. Bacteria, including postbiotics, and yeast with claimed probiotic properties, potential probiotic properties, or potential therapeutic application that have been incorporated into or isolated from yogurt or yogurt-related products.
BacteriaReference
Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricusAll yogurt
Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. lactis[34]
Lactobacillus acidophilus[35]
Lactobacillus amylovorus[36]
Lactobacillus crispatus[37]
Lactobacillus gasseri[38]
Lactobacillus helveticus[39]
Lactobacillus jensenii[40]
Lactobacillus johnsonii[37]
Lacticaseibacillus casei (formerly Lactobacillus casei)[41]
Lacticaseibacillus paracasei (formerly Lactobacillus casei or Lactobacillus paracasei)[42]
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus)[43]
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum)[44]
Lactiplantibacillus paraplantarum (formerly Lactobacillus paraplantarum)[45]
Lactiplantibacillus pentosus (formerly Lactobacillus pentosus)[46]
Latilactobacillus sakei (formerly Lactobacillus sakei)[47]
Latilactobacillus curvatus (formerly Lactobacillus curvatus)[48]
Lentilactobacillus parafarraginis (formerly Lactobacillus parafarraginis)[49]
Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis)[50]
Ligilactobacillus salivarius (formerly Lactobacillus salivarius)[51] 1
Limosilactobacillus fermentum (formerly Lactobacillus fermentum)[36]
Limosilactobacillus mucosae (formerly Lactobacillus mucosae)[30]
Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri)[52]
Loigolactobacillus coryniformis (formerly Lactobacillus coryniformis)[38]
Weisella (formerly Lactobacillus) viridescens[34]
Weisella cibaria[53]
Weisella paramesenteroides[45]
Streptococcus thermophilusAll yogurt
Streptococcus salivarius[54]
Bifidobacterium bifidum[55]
Bifidobacterium longum[55]
Bifidobacterium infantis[55]
Bifidobacterium adolescentis[55]
Bifidobacterium breve[55]
Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis[56]
Weizmannia coagulans (formerly Bacillus coagulans)[57]
Bacillus subtilis[58]
Priestia flexa (formerly Bacillus flexus)[58]
Bacillus licheniformis[58]
Bacillus mojavensis[58]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens2[59]
Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp. shermanii[60]
Propionibacterium acidipropionici[61]
Propionibacterium jensenii[62]
Propionibacterium thoenii (jensenii)[62]
Leuconostoc mesenteroides[63]
Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides[64]
Leuconostoc lactis[65]
Lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis (formerly Streptococcus lactis)[44]
Lactococcus cremoris (formerly Streptococcus cremoris)[66] 3
Pediococcus acidilactici[67]
Pediococcus pentosaceus[68]
Enterococcus faecium[69]
Enterococcus faecalis[45]
Enterococcus durans[69]
Enterococcus lactis[68]
Bacteroides vulgatus[70] 4
Bacteroides dorei[70] 4
Faecalibacterium prausnitzii[70] 4
Prevotella copri[70] 4,5
Yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii[71]
Kluyveromyces marxianus[72]
1 This reference describes adding this probiotic within jelly candy enriched with grape seeds extract. 2 This probiotic was isolated from yogurt-flavored cultured beverage Yogu Farm™. 3 Although this reference stated that Lactococcus lactis ssp. cremoris was isolated from yogurt, other papers have described this bacterium as a probiotic. 4 These new generation probiotics were found in homemade back-slopped yogurts. 5 Although this bacterium has been associated with health benefits, an overabundance of this intestinal bacterium was associated with arthritis and intestinal mucositis.
Table
Table 2. List of GRAS (generally recognized as safe) substances (viable probiotic, heat-killed microorganism, or spore preparation) that might be able to be used in yogurt or related products as of 30 October 2022. Taken from: https://www.cfsanappsexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=GRASNotices (accessed on 30 October 2022).
Table 2. List of GRAS (generally recognized as safe) substances (viable probiotic, heat-killed microorganism, or spore preparation) that might be able to be used in yogurt or related products as of 30 October 2022. Taken from: https://www.cfsanappsexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=GRASNotices (accessed on 30 October 2022).
GRN NumberSubstance (Beneficial Microorganism)NotifierStatus 1Date of Closure
1065Anaerobutyricum soehngenii CH106Caelus HealthPending
1063Weissella cibaria CMUOraPharm, Inc.Pending
1022Streptococcus salivarius DB-B5Dose BiosystemsNo questions8/22/2022
1013Lactobacillus rhamnosus DSM 33156 (LGG)Chr. Hansen’s, Inc.No questions12/15/2022
1003Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis M-63Morinaga Milk Industry Co., Ltd.No questions4/26/2022
1002Bifidobacterium breve strain MCC1274Morinaga Milk Industry Co., Ltd.No questions7/22/2022
988Lactobacillus fermentum LfQi6Quorum InnovationsNo questions3/28/2022
971Bacillus clausii 088AE spore preparationAdvanced Enzyme TechnologiesNo questions3/3/2022
969Bacillus subtilis “Bss-19” spore preparationDanisco USANo questions10/6/2021
957Lactobacillus johnsonii strain ATCC PTA-124205Prozure, Inc.No questions10/26/2021
956Bacillus subtilis ATCC SD-7280Advanced Enzyme TechnologiesNo questions8/18/2021
955Bacillus subtilis strain BS-MB40 PTA-122264 spore preparationBIO-CAT MicrobialsNo questions3/26/2021
953Lactobacillus plantarum strain CECT 7527, CECT 7528, and CECT 7529Kaneka Americas HoldingNo questions2/5/2021
952Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis strain AD011BIFIDO CO., LTD.No questions3/17/2021
950Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis DSM 33361Chr. HansenNo questions3/1/2021
949Bacillus coagulans strain DSM 17654 spore preparationAdvanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd.No questions1/7/2021
875Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis AD011BIFIDO CO., LTD.No questions10/30/2019
872Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis UAB1a-12UAS LaboratoriesNo questions12/9/2019
871Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1UAS LaboratoriesNo questions10/23/2019
856Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis strain BB-12Chr. HansenNo questions12/9/2019
847Lactobacillus plantarum ECGC 13110402ProBiotix HealthNo questions9/30/2019
845Lactobacillus rhamnosus GGChr. HansenNo questions10/30/2019
831Bacillus subtilis DE111Deerland ProbioticsNo questions8/13/2019
820Lactobacillus fermentum CECT 5716Biosearch. S.A.No questions4/3/2019
814Bifidobacterium bifidum BGN4BIFIDO Co., Ltd.No questions6/25/2019
813Bifidobacterium longum BORIBIFIDO Co., Ltd.No questions6/21/2019
807Streptococcus salivarius M18BLIS TechnologiesNo questions6/6/2019
736Lactobacillus casei subsp. paracasei Lpc-37Du Pont Nutrition and HealthNo questions4/11/2018
722Lactobacillus plantarum Lp-115Du Pont Nutrition and HealthNo questions2/16/2018
691Bacillus coagulans SANK 70258 spore preparationMitsubishi-Kagaku Foods CorporationNo questions8/28/2017
685Lactobacillus plantarum strain 299vProbi ABNo questions10/31/2017
670Inactivated Bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086Ganeden, Inc.No questions3/15/2017
601Bacillus coagulans SBC 37-01 spore preparationSabinsa Corp.No questions4/28/2016
597Bacillus coagulans SNZ 1969 spore preparationSanzyme LimitedNo questions2/29/2016
591Streptococcus salivarius K12BLIS Technologies Ltd.No questions1/25/2016
526Bacillus coagulans strain Unique IS2 spores preparationUnique Biotech LimitedNo questions3/23/2015
502Lactobacillus acidophilus La-14Danisco USA, Inc.No questions8/19/2014
453Bifidobacterium breve M-16VMorinaga Milk Industry Co., Inc.No questions9/27/2013
445Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis strains HN019, Bi-07, B1-04, and B420Danisco USA, Inc.No questions4/10/2013
440Lactobacillus reuteri strain NCIMB 30242Micropharma Ltd.No questions2/12/2013
429Lactobacillus casei strain ShirotaYakult Honsha Co., Ltd.No questions12/10/2012
415Heat-killed Propionibacterium freudenreichii ET-3 culture (powder)Meiju Co., Ltd.No questions 212/26/2012
399Preparation of Bacillus coagulans strain GBI-30, 6086 sporesGaneden, Inc.No questions7/31/2012
377Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis strain Bf-6Cargill, Inc.No questions9/29/2011
357Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFMDanisco USA, Inc.No questions4/19/2011
288Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain HN001Fonterra Co-operative GroupNo questions11/1/2009
268Bifidobacterium longum strain BB536Morinaga Milk Industry Co., Ltd.No questions7/8/2009
254Lactobacillus reuteri strain DSM 17938BioGaia ABNo questions5/29/2008
1 “No questions” means “FDA has no questions”. 2 Some uses may require a color additive petition.
Table
Table 3. Some health benefits for which probiotics, postbiotics, and paraprobiotics have shown a mixed to favorable result in an original study or in a meta-analysis. Due to the difficulty of being consistent involved in evaluating the strength of the evidence for the effectiveness of probiotics in preventing or treating each of these health conditions, no attempt was made for the evaluation of effectiveness for the probiotics listed in this table.
Table 3. Some health benefits for which probiotics, postbiotics, and paraprobiotics have shown a mixed to favorable result in an original study or in a meta-analysis. Due to the difficulty of being consistent involved in evaluating the strength of the evidence for the effectiveness of probiotics in preventing or treating each of these health conditions, no attempt was made for the evaluation of effectiveness for the probiotics listed in this table.
Health ConditionProbioticOriginal Article or Review PaperReference
Periodontal disease Review[125]
Bacterial tonsillitisStreptococcus salivarius BIO5Original[54]
Anti-inflammatory and antibiofilm activities against oral pathogensEnterococcus faecalis M157 in fermented wheyOriginal[126]
Lactose intolerance Review[127]
GalactosemiaGalactose positive S. thermophilus NCDC 659 (AJM), 660 (JMI), and 661 (KM3)Original[128]
Short-chain fatty acid productionVSL#3 1Original[129]
Vitamin production Review[130]
Gamma-aminobutyric acid productionL. plantarum K16Original[131]
Protection against foodborne illness Review[132]
Colonization of CampylobacterL. plantarum LPSOriginal[133]
Anti-listerial activityPostbiotics of L. acidophilus LA5, L. casei 431, and L. salivarius Ls-BU2Original[134]
Antimicrobial therapy Review[135]
Gut microbiome development in very preterm infantsEither B. bifidum and L. acidophilus or B. bifidum and B. longum subsp. infantis and L. acidophilusOriginal[136]
Healthy microbiomeB. subtilis DE111Original[137]
Restoration of microbiome after antibiotic treatmentL. acidophilus and B. bifidumOriginal[138]
Improve microbiome in cirrhosis patientsMultispecies probioticsOriginal[139]
Modulate gut microbiota and reduce exposure to uremic toxins in hemodialysis patientsBifico (B. longum NQ1501, L. acidophilus YIT2004, and E. faecalis YIT0072)Original[140]
Gut bacterial diversityBacillus coagulans GBI-30 6086Original[141]
Leaky gutProbiotic cocktail of 5 Lactobacilli and 5 Enterococci strainsOriginal[142]
Improve Gut Epithelial BarrierS. thermophilus BGKMJ1-36 and L. bulgaricus BGVLJ1-21Original[143]
Antioxidative activity Review[144]
Antioxidant activity and intestinal permeability in cancer carcinogenesisVSL#3 1Original[145]
Oxidative and inflammatory stress reductionL. plantarum S1 (viable and heat-killed cells and metabolites) from fermented wheyOriginal[146]
Immunity Review[147]
Exopolysaccharide production for immunomodulatory, antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anticancer activitiesLactobacillusReview[148]
Highly symptomatic celiac diseaseBifidobacterium infantis NLS super strainOriginal[149]
Viral infectionsVarious probiotics and paraprobioticsReview[150]
Possible inhibition of HIV transmission and replicationEngineered L. rhamnosus GG and GR-1Original[151]
Diarrhea in HIV/AIDS patientsProbiotic yogurt with L. rhamnosus GR-1 and L. reuteri RC-14Original[152]
Antibiotic-associated diarrheaB. animalis subsp. lactis XLTG11Original[153]
Chemotherapy-induced diarrhea in lung cancer patientsClostridium butyricumOriginal[154]
Enteral-tube-feeding diarrhea 2 Review[155]
Childhood rotavirus infections Review[156]
Acute pediatric diarrhea Review[157]
Travelers diarrheaLactobacillus GGOriginal[158]
L. acidophilus and B. bifidumOriginal[159]
Clostridioides difficile diarrheaL. rhamnosus GGOriginal[160]
Helicobacter pylori infectionLimosilactobacillus fermentum UCO-979COriginal[161]
ConstipationL. acidophilus LA11-Onlly, L. rhamnosus LR22, L. reuteri LE16, L. plantarum LP-Onlly, and B. animalis subsp. lactis BI516Original[162]
L. rhamnosus LR-168, L. acidophilus LA-99, and B. animalis BB-115Original[163]
Irritable bowel syndrome Review[164]
Necrotizing enterocolitisB. longum subsp. infantisOriginal[165]
Ulcerative colitis Review[166]
Review[167]
Hospital stay for acute pancreatitis Review[168]
Colorectal cancer Review[169]
Gastrointestinal cancer Review[170]
Liver and breast cancerStreptococcus salivarius BP8, BP156, and BP160Original[171]
Breast cancer Review[172,173]
Prostate cancerWhey beverages with L. acidophilus La-05, L. acidophilus La-03, L. casei-01, and B. animalis Bb-12Original[174]
Cervical cancer Review[175]
Polycystic ovary syndrome Review[176]
VaginosisLactobacillusOriginal[177]
Antimicrobial activity (hydrogen peroxide, bacteriocins, and lactic acid production) for vaginal healthLactobacillus crispatusReview[178]
Inhibit sperm activityLactobacillus crispatusOriginal[179]
Male fertility disorders Review[180]
Bladder cancer Review[181]
Bladder diseases (bladder cancer, interstitial cystitis, and overactive bladder) Review[182]
Reduce exposure to uremic toxins in hemodialysis patientsBifico (B. longum NQ1501, L. acidophilus YIT2004, and E. faecalis YIT0072)Original[140]
Pediatric urinary tract infection recurrenceL. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, B. bifidum, and B. lactisOriginal[183]
Urinary excretion of oxalate (risk factor for renal stones)L. acidophilus, L. brevis, L. plantarum, B. infantis, and S. thermophilusOriginal[184]
Idiopathic nephrotic syndromeClostridium butyricumOriginal[185]
Lung metastasis of melanoma cellsVSL#3 1Original[129]
Respiratory tract infection Review[186]
Influenza A virusL. mucosae 1025 and B. breve CCFM1026Original[187]
COVID-19Probiotics and their metabolitesReview[188]
Ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients Review[189]
Allergic rhinitisBifidobacterium mixtureReview[190]
Respiratory allergyCommercial probiotic fermented milkOriginal[191]
AsthmaL. paracasei K47Original[192]
Cystic fibrosis Review[193]
Atopic dermatitis Review[194]
Skin disorders (atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, rosacea, and acne vulgaris) Review[195]
Skin healthL. reuteri ATCC 6475Original[196]
Dry eyeL. plantarum NK151 and B. bifidum NK175Original[197]
Vernal keratoconjunctivitisL. acidophilus eye dropsOriginal[198]
Rheumatoid arthritis 2 Review[199,200]
Recovery from bone fracturesL. casei ShirotaOriginal[201]
Pain relief after rib fractureL. casei ShirotaOriginal[202]
Mineral absorption and bone healthL. rhamnosus HN001Original[203]
Calcium absorptionL. rhamnosus GG *Original[204]
Iron absorption Review[205]
Blood lipidsB. subtilis DE111 [206]
Fasting glucose and insulin levels Review[207]
Diabetes (blood pressure, fasting blood sugar, cholesterol, triglyceride, hemoglobin A1c, high sensitive C-reactive protein)Probiotic yogurtOriginal[208]
Serum triglyceride and glucoseBacillus coagulans GBI-30 6086Original[141]
Atherosclerosis (lesion formation, dyslipidemia, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, hypertension and hyperglycemia, and TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide)) Review[209]
Infantile colicB. breve CECT7263Original[210]
ObesityL. reuteri ATCC 6475Original[211]
Review[212]
Liver fibrosisL. paracasei, L. casei, and Weissella confusaOriginal[213]
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease Review[214]
Hyperuricemia Review[215]
PhenylketonuriaGenetically engineered probioticsReview[216]
Exercise performance and decrease fatigueL. salivarius subsp. salicinius SA-03Original[217]
Sleep Review[218]
Depression and anxiety Review[219]
Anxiety Original[220]
Serotonin biosynthesis from tryptophanL. plantarum LRCC5314Original[221]
Mood Original[222]
Memory and learningL. paracasei ssp. paracasei BCRC 12188, L. plantarum BCRC 12251, and S. thermophilus BCRC 13869Original[223]
Age related dementia Review[224]
Autism Review[225]
1 VSL#3 includes B. breve, B. infantis, B. longum, L. acidophilus, L. bulgaricus, L. casei, L. plantarum, and S. thermophilus. 2 Mixed results. * Inulin was also included in the treatment which may have contributed to the favorable results.
Table
Table 4. Some of the probiotics and prebiotics that have been incorporated into synbiotic yogurt.
Table 4. Some of the probiotics and prebiotics that have been incorporated into synbiotic yogurt.
ProbioticPrebioticReference
L. acidophilus ATCC 4357Fructooligosaccharide and Isomaltooligosaccharide[303]
L. acidophilus LA-5Oligofructose-enriched inulin[304]
L. acidophilus LA-5Honey and aqueous cinnamon extract[305]
L. acidophilus ATCC 4356Flaxseed[306]
L. acidophilusWhite oyster mushroom flour and Taro flour[307]
L. acidophilus 100021 and L. helveticus 501699Inulin and maltodextrin[308]
L. acidophilus LA-5 and B. animalis subsp. lactis BB-12Monk fruit extract, inulin, and pectin[309]
L. acidophilus ATCC 4356 and B. longumPurple Sweet Potato[310]
L. acidophilus and B. animalis subsp. lactisBlack carrot pulp and Exudate acacia gum[311]
L. acidophilus and BifidobacteriaCitrus peels of sour orange, sweet orange, and lemon[312]
L. acidophilus and L. caseiStachyose[313]
L. casei 01Inulins of varying chain lengths: short (P95), medium (GR) and long (HP)[314]
L. casei 01Inulin, polydextrose, and modified starch[315]
L. casei strain ShirotaInulin or fructans from Agave salmiana Otto ex Salm-Dyck[316]
L. casei and L. gasseriBanana fiber and peel banana fiber[317]
L. casei 431, L. rhamnosus LGG, and B. animalis subsp. lactis BB-12Banana peel powder and Mango peel powder[318]
L. rhamnosus LGGInulin[204]
L. paracasei1Lactitol 1[319]
L. paracaseiGalactofructose, inulin, soy protein isolate, and spirulina[320]
L. plantarum CFR 2194 and L. fermentum CFR 2192Fructooligosaccharides[321]
L. plantarum1Sorbitol[322]
L. plantarum TISTR 1465Black waxy rice[323]
L. reuteri DPC16Manuka honey[324]
B. longum ATCC 15707Rosemary extract[325]
B. animalis Bb-12Inulin[56]
B. infantis Bb02Gluten Friendly Flour™[326]
Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp. shermanii (PS-4)Inulin[327]
1 Synbiotic microcapsules.
Table
Table 5. Some of the useful functional ingredients that have been incorporated into probiotic yogurt including their concentration and effect on the properties of the resulting yogurt.
Table 5. Some of the useful functional ingredients that have been incorporated into probiotic yogurt including their concentration and effect on the properties of the resulting yogurt.
Functional Ingredient Category (in Bold) and IngredientConcentrationEffect on PropertiesRef.
Grain, seed, and flour
Aqueous fennel extract2, 4, and 6%Reconstituting whole milk powder into aqueous fennel extract to manufacture probiotic yogurt resulted in a product with increased phenolic content and antioxidant activity compared to fresh yogurt.[362]
Flaxseed0–4%Flaxseed was successfully added to yogurt containing L. acidophilus ATCC 4356. This yogurt had increased L. acidophilus counts, viscosity, hardness, cohesiveness, gumminess, and water holding capacity but decreased syneresis and adhesiveness compared to their control yogurt.[306]
Sesame seeds6%Incorporation of roasted sesame into stirred yogurt improveds probiotic viability, sensory properties, and antioxidant properties.[363]
Psyllium husk (Native and acid-modified psyllium husk)0.5 g per liter of buffalo milkIncorporation of psyllium husk into frozen yogurt containing the encapsulated probiotics L. acidophilus and L. plantarum formed a product with high consumer acceptability.[364]
Oat β-glucan0.15%β-glucan and EPS-producing B. bifidum increased viscosity and water holding capacity but decreased syneresis.[365]
Wheat bran4%Incorporation of wheat bran significantly increased total bacterial counts and titratable acidity.[366]
Resisant starch (RS2 and RS3) 11.5%This yogurt was made from reconstituted skim milk. RS2 increased serum held within gel network. RS3 protected B. animalis subsp. lactis BB-12, increased viscosity, and decreased titratable acidity.[367]
Chickpea flour0, 1, 2.5, and 5%Fortification of chickpea flour into probiotic yogurt resulted in improved water holding capacity and decreased syneresis for the resulting yogurt.[368]
Fiber Ingredient
Inulin of varying chain lengths 21.5%P95 lowered the pH but maintained similar flavor scores compared to the control. HP decreased syneresis and improved body and texture compared to the control.[369]
Orange fiber0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2%Incorporating orange fiber into yogurt containing L. acidophilus LA-5 and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 improved antioxidant activity and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)–inhibitory activity.[370]
Lemon and orange fibers3 g to 200 mLThe enriched fermented milk had good sensory acceptability. L. acidophilus and L. casei had better survival than B. bifidum.[371]
Wolfberry dietary fiber (goji berry)0.5–5%Yogurt containing 2% (w/v) wolfberry dietary fiber had less syneresis, higher apparent viscosity, and increased hardness compared to control yogurt.[235]
Fruit or fruit ingredient and vegetable
Fruit purees (peach, apple, and pear)10 and 20%Peach and apples were the most suitable fruits for probiotic yogurt.[372]
Dragon fruit12%The optimal formulation was 12% dragon fruit, 11% sugar, and 2% L. plantarum. Fermentation time was 19 h at 37 °C.[373]
Isabel “Precoce” grape ingredientsIsabel grape preparation
(20 g/100 mL)
By-product flour
(2 g/100 mL)		This goat milk yogurt had high L. acidophilus La-05 counts, distinct phenolic profile, higher antioxidant capacity, sensory acceptance, and consumer preference compared to control probiotic yogurt.[374]
Orange sweet potato15 and 25%Orange sweet potato purees incorporated into probiotic yogurt were accepted by consumers.[375]
Berry and nut
Gobdin (Dry white mulberry and walnut paste)0, 5, and 10%Adding 5% gobdin to yogurt containing L. acidophilus resulted in an acceptable product.[376]
Juice (fruit or vegetable)
Pomegranate juice16%Yogurt fortified with pomegranate juice and probiotics had desirable sensory properties during storage.[377]
Carrot juice8, 16, 24, and 32%There was increased color intensity, carrot flavor, creaminess, mouth coating, and chalkiness with increased carrot juice levels.[378]
Juice and flower
Juice from kiwifruit and jasmine flour20% kiwi fruit juice and 15% jasmine flower juiceThe best formulation was 20% kiwi fruit juice, 15% jasmine flower juice, and 5% inoculum concentration. Fermentation time was 8 h at 40 °C.[379]
Spice and Oil
Spices (Cardamom, cinnamon, and nutmeg)0.5% (v/w)Yogurts containing spices had good sensory properties with enhanced antioxidant activity.[380]
Ginger and chamomile essential oil0.2 and 0.4%Ginger and chamomile essential oils and B. lactis Bb12 addition enhanced yogurt properties. Incorporation of essential oil significantly decreased fermentation time.[381]
Dill essential oil50 and 100 ppmYogurt containing 100 ppm dill essential oil received high sensory scores and maintained high viability of B. bifidum and L. casei.[382]
Peppermint, Basil, and Zataria essential oils0.5%Antioxidant potential was improved by addition of all three essential oils.
Peppermint and basil yogurts had acceptable sensory properties, but zataria yogurt was not as acceptable.		[383]
Bee products
Pine honey2, 4, and 6%The 2% level was the preferred level during sensory evaluation.[384]
Royal jelly2% (w/v)Royal jelly incorporation Ssignificantly improved physicochemical, rheological, sensory, and microbiological properties (increased probiotic viability) compared to control probiotic yogurt.[385]
Cyanobacterium
Spirulina (a biomass of cyanobacterium)1 g per liter of yogurt mix.This yogurt was less acidic than the control yogurt on the 7th day, and there was higher growth of lactic acid bacteria in this yogurt than for the control yogurt on the 7th day.[386]
1 RS2 is high amylose corn starch while RS3 is physically modified corn starch. 2 Inulin chain lengths were short (P95), medium (GR), and long (HP).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Olson, D.W.; Aryana, K.J. Probiotic Incorporation into Yogurt and Various Novel Yogurt-Based Products. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12607. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412607

AMA Style

Olson DW, Aryana KJ. Probiotic Incorporation into Yogurt and Various Novel Yogurt-Based Products. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(24):12607. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412607

Chicago/Turabian Style

Olson, Douglas W., and Kayanush J. Aryana. 2022. "Probiotic Incorporation into Yogurt and Various Novel Yogurt-Based Products" Applied Sciences 12, no. 24: 12607. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412607

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop