What are Spore-Based Organisms and are they Better than Human-Derived Probiotics?

Spore-based organisms are not new, as some believe.  They have been around since the 1930's, and were debunked in 1939.  Yet they have made a resurgence as of late, probably because in the nutritional industry companies are aggressively trying to carve out a niche for themselves, attempting to promote things that are "new" and "unique," but really are anything but. 

“Spore-based” organisms are being misclassified by some manufacturers as probiotics, although this designation is a deviation from the International Scientific Association of Prebiotics and Probiotics (ISAPP).  According to the ISAPP, to be classified as a probiotic, bacterial strains must be human in origin. Therefore, spores would not fit that definition, as spores are soil-based.

"...Bacillus coagulans is a ubiquitous soil bacterium that grows at 50-55 °C [122-133 °F]..." Stand Genomic Sci. 2011 Dec 31;5(3):331-40. Rhee et al.

Therefore, soil-based organisms are not typically considered “normal” GI residents. The suggestion of use is often to the hygiene-theory of disease, as it is now being suggested that humans are now “too clean,” and exposure to these various soil organisms may prime the immune system. This is a theory that may not be commonly accepted in conventional medicine or even in holistic medicine circles, however, because it lacks scientific validation. 

The strains used in high quality probiotics are generally human-microflora – those genus, species, and strains found natively in the human gut.  Some probiotics may also offer other strains that are found in dairy and/or fermented plants foods (sauerkraut, as example). 

Strains are given their designation once the genome is mapped. Spore organisms have not been subjected to DNA mapping.  We also know there is a massive body of research on the various specific human strains. In theory, spores as probiotics might have some benefit, and there are research articles available, but thus far the research looks very scant compared to the mammoth amount of data regarding human-based organisms.  But an important point to consider is that none of the few studies that exist on spores show anything new or better than what standard human-based probiotics have been shown to provide.  Thus, the marketing on spore probiotics does not appear to match the research.  As has been said, "what glitters isn't always gold."  

The only unique characteristic of spore-based organisms is their purported (not proven) improved survivability, which is less unique in terms of clinical properties.  It is suggested that there is greater survival through the GI tract, as they are in their “inactive” spore state when swallowed and supposedly activated during digestion. However, if this survivability proves valid, some have concerns along these lines as to the safety and potential growth of pathogens as a result of lack of transit.  

Regarding survivability in the digestive process, survivability of the more hardy strains of probiotic organisms is not the primary concern anyway.  Think about it.  When a person eats kefir or any other cultured food, do the organisms survive digestion and colonize?  Most of the time, yes, and they are not even encapsulated!  This is just another example of companies trying to create a "need" that doesn't really exist and has never been demonstrated in the literature. 

Recall the definition of probiotics: “Proven clinical efficacy when taken orally.” Human-based probiotics have this track record of clinical efficacy, safety, and reems of research.  

When in doubt, therefore, it would be advisable to go with the proven track record and research.

In summary, there are two very important considerations.

First, what is the true definition of a probiotic according to the ISAPP?  For one, genus, species, and strain must be listed on the bottle.  

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they have to have proven clinical efficacy in humans when taken orally. 

So then, other than supposed unique survivability, what does the literature show regarding these spore-species – in humans – that may not be found with more ‘traditional’ human-microflora?  Well, nothing.

In keeping with the standards of scientific research and strains that are accepted as safe and effective, do spore-based strains like lactobacillus sporogenes enjoy this kind of data?  No. According to the article, Lactobacillus sporogenes is Not a Lactobacillus Probiotic, "No independent panel of experts has evaluated the safety of B. Coagulans for human consumption."¹  

Furthermore, Lactobacillus Sporogenes is not even a legitimately recognized strain and is actually a misclassification, as stated above.

 

 Let’s close the discussion by quoting again from the same article:

 

"Unlike [true] probiotic species of lactobacilli, members of the genus Bacillus are not considered normal members of the intestinal flora... Published literature supporting the role of Bacillus coagulans in enhancing human health is sparse, especially as compared to literature published on Lactobacillus use as probiotics. To continue to persist using this taxonomically incorrect name leads to speculation about the advantages of willingly mislabeling a product. It is likely that companies hope to benefit from association with the large aggregate of published literature and history of use on the safety and health benefits of the genus Lactobacillus... The perpetuation of intentional mislabeling in the long run will serve to erode consumer confidence and undermine the credibility of the probiotic industry." 

 

Reference:

“Lactobacillus sporogenes” Is Not a Lactobacillus Probiotic, – Mary Ellen Sanders Dairy and Food Culture Technologies Littleton, Colo; Lorenzo Morelli Instituto di Microbiologia UCSC Piacenza, Italy; Scott Bush Rhodia Inc. Madison, Wis.

 

 

NAD Precursors in Anti-Aging & Mitochondrial Support: Filtering out Truth from Marketing

The interest in NAD precursors/boosters is gaining momentum in not only the holistic health care world, but now also in the lay public, particularly those interested in performance and anti-aging.  A couple of very well-funded start-up OTC companies have been heavily promoting their products on social media.  Hopefully we can get a clearer distinction here between hype and hope.

WHAT IS NAD AND WHAT DOES IT DO?

Without going into a lengthy biochemical diatribe, let's scale this back to a short and simple working definition.  

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) is a cofactor central to metabolism. A critical coenzyme found in every cell in the body, it’s involved in hundreds of metabolic processes like cellular energy and mitochondrial health.  But like everything else, there is not an endless supply of it in the body and declines with age.  That's why  it is being examined in anti-aging applications, energy, and sports performance.

  

VITAMIN B3 AS A NATURAL NAD-BOOSTING COMPOUND

The compound being heavily promoted in NAD-boosting supplements is nicotinamide riboside chloride, which is another oral form of vitamin B3 (niacin/niacinamide).  Nicotinamide riboside chloride is a very novel-sounding compound not widely known to the masses, and it sounds much more exotic and "new" compared to simply listing the compound as vitamin B3 with the specific form in parentheses, which is common on supplement labels.   The chloride portion, by the way, is not part of the therapeutic benefit.  It turns out that nearly any form of B3 will help boost NAD, but especially niacinamide.  

Humans metabolize vitamin B3 in its vitamin function specifically to synthesize NAD for energy. NAD is maintained in the body both by recycling of NAD as well as synthesis from vitamin B3. It does not take much oral B3 to maintain NAD due to significant recycling by the body. 

Vitamin B3 in the form of niacinamide is a precursor to NAD.  Therefore, one might consider higher doses oral niacinamide, which is a heck of a lot less expensive compared to some of the "novel" NAD precursor products that contain the nicotinamide riboside chloride form.  

While oral nicotinamide riboside is 'new,' the function of niacin (niacinamide/nicotinamide) has long been well understood associated to energy (NAD) and DNA protection. The riboside is an attachment to the simple sugar ribose, and it should be noted that there is not a suggested ribose deficiency in the diet and is endogenously produced. 

"...In the body, nicotinic acid [niacin] is converted to nicotinamide in hepatocytes and erythrocytes, and nicotinamide can then be transported in plasma to be used by all cells for the synthesis of nicotinamide nucleotides (i.e., nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide [NAD] and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate)..." Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Feb 15;36(4):453-60. Nicotinamide: an oral antimicrobial agent with activity against both Mycobacterium tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus. Murray MF.

Here's another quote from a study that I particularly like the title of:  

"Niacin: an old lipid drug in a new NAD+ dress"

"Niacin can be processed by eukaryotic cells to synthesize a crucial cofactor, NAD+...  [Niacin] acts as a control switch of NAD⁺/sirtuin-mediated control of metabolism."  J Lipid Res. 2019 Apr;60(4):741-746.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT

One might also consider  glutathione support with compounds such as N-acetlcysteine and glucoraphanin from broccoli extract. Additionally, CoQ10, magnesium, taurine and creatine to name just a few can be considered for mitochondrial energy support.  

"SHOULD I BUY NICOTINAMIDE RIBOSIDE CHLORIDE SUPPLEMENTS?"

What to buy is up to the consumer's best judgement, of course.  But the cost/benefits ratio declines sharply with this form of B3 compared to standard niacinamide, since the latter is much less expensive.  Furthermore, there is only a small amount of human data available on the riboside chloride form at this time.  It is the opinion of this writer that nicotinamide riboside chloride products are incorrectly hyped as a "new" powerful way to boost NAD differently and better than other nutritional compounds.  But the research doesn't bear this out.  To my knowledge there have not been any studies comparing the two head-to-head, so any claim that riboside chloride products are somehow more effective doesn't appear to hold up.

There is also a very interesting patent battle going on right now between the two companies that are heavily marketing the riboside chloride form, which tells you a lot about how the nutritional industry works.   

Therefore, let the buyer beware.  

Niacin and niacinamide as stand alone supplements or in combination with one another and/or with other B-vitamins are common, and as little as 200 mg per day can make a difference.  But one could take significantly more without a problem.  Just be careful of the "niacin flush" of a burning prickly sensation on the skin that is common with standard high dose niacin.  Niacinamide, however, normally does not produce a flushing effect.  Likewise, adding N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and broccoli extract to the mix for the glutathione support benefits can be a powerful combination.  One such combination provides 750 mg of niacinamide per two tablets, along with 750 mg of  NAC, 38 mg of broccoli extract, and additional selenium and vitamin C for a big glutathione and NAD support formula. 

It should also be noted that being in a state of ketosis also appears to boost NAD according to some research.  So intermittent fasting and/or a ketogenic diet for a few weeks to months and re-visited occasionally is an important consideration here as well.