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.

 

 

Colostrum vs. 2'FL: What you Need to Know

Colostrum is being touted by some sources as the "best" thing for gut health.  But there are some things to be aware of.

First of all, colostrum products are not derived from human sources, but bovine.  Cows, of course, have radically different GI function compared to humans, and bovine colostrum is different in its composition compared to human colostrum.  While there is some evidence that bovine colostrum can have some benefit in humans, it also must be pointed out that commercially available colostrum products also typically contain milk proteins, which would rule them out for people with milk allergies.  

There is also an ethical consideration to "true" colostrum pertaining to mother's "first milk." Some feel an ethical consideration whereby that "first milk" be saved for the feeding calf and not harvested for commercial use. This is an animal rights issue, as well as ultimately a human health issue, since beef raised without the benefit of colostrum can be less healthy.

Therefore, some companies have chosen to avoid this kind of product and go instead with products that are colostrum-like or contain ingredients that provide some of the same healing properties, but without the milk proteins and without the ethical concerns.

Biopure ProteinTM, for example, is not colostrum, but colostrum-like in that there is higher immunoglobulin content and special processing to preserve these immunoglobulins. These milk-derived immune proteins are as high in concentration as colostrum, and, in some cases, can be even higher, because the immunoglobulins can vary with the seasons.

Another choice is the human milk oligosaccaride (HMO), 2' fucosyllacstose, or 2'FL.  This new and novel ingredient is considered an HMO because it is an oligosaccaride bioidentical to the ones found in HUMAN breast milk.  

Colostrum is the first secretion of milk produced by the mammary glands in late pregnancy and a few days after giving birth, used as ‘first feeding’ of the infant.  2’FL is found in human colostrum as it is a naturally occurring component of human breast milk (one of the most abundant HMOs). It is an important prebiotic and anti-adhesion compound. (Human colostrum, by the way, is not available as a dietary supplement.  At least we hope not!)

The researh on 2'FL is piling up, showing that it has potent antimicrobial properties, as well as providing fuel for the growth and proliferation of probiotic bacteria, thus helping to establish a healthy microbiota.  

A 6-week study on the functional food product, UltraGI Replenish, studied on patients with a history of IBS and IBD (but not acute during the time of the study) showed that 7 of 8 pathogenic bacteria were no longer detectable at the end of the six weeks, and bifidobacteria went wild, increasing 19-fold!  SCFAs also increased significantly, in addition to the improvements of several other gut biomarkers.  Symptoms and quality of life scores also improved dramatically.1 

There is no shortage of players in nature's pharmacy for gut health, and 2'FL appears to be one of the most promising ingredients on the market to emerge in a long time.   

1. A Medical Food (UGIR) Reduces Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Beneficially Alters Gut Microbiota in Adults with IBS and IBD

A Multi-Clinic, Open-Label Study, MET2151 070516 © 2016 Metagenics, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
  

The Emerging Understanding of Probiotics and Colonization

Recently I was asked a good question by a doctor about oral probiotic supplements and whether they survive transit in the GI, particularly very acidic stomachs, and whether or not there are studies confirming colonization of various probiotics strains.  Since this question represents the more widespread thought process of probiotics -- a thought process that is becoming antiquated -- I thought I would pass the answer on.

To answer this question, let's consider the strain studied in weight control.  The genus, species, and strain are: B. Lactis B420.  B420 is not a human-strain. It was first identified in dairy. However, as fermented dairy foods are common in human diets, B420 can be grown from a stool sample from non-supplemented humans (proof of survival in GI transit). Also, in the current study, B420 was cultured from stool samples of the treatment arms as proof of survival in GI transit. So is this same culturing required for all human-strain probiotics? Not really. If they are human-strains, how did they get there in the first place? Orally, through foods, through the gut. Non-protected, no 'encapsulation' was needed naturally. And one would assume that this is the case even with very low pH (high acidity), since probiotics from fermented foods appear to still colonize the guts of people in all pH ranges.  (i.e. People with very high acid stomachs with a pH of, say, 1 or 2, do not have sterile GI tracts.  They are still colonized with all kinds of bugs.)

Regarding survivability of stomach acid, then, what is well understood is that the stomach is acidic pretty much all the time (while food may actually act as an acid buffer), and that human-strain probiotics should 'naturally' be able to survive GI transit (i.e. how did they get their in the first place?).

Now, here's the biggie: Colonization. 

It used to be thought that the rationale for use of oral probiotics was to repopulate the gut. That is out of date. The current understanding of probiotics is strain-specific activity. In other words, residency in the gut microbiota seemed to be the marker of a strain's hardiness/survivability in times past.  But not anymore. The modern understanding is that oral probiotics are not about colonization.  Oral probiotics are about their transient effects, helping to make the neighborhood a better place. A healthy gut is a diverse one, made up of hundreds, even thousands of species. How can one create diversity through oral probiotics of one, two, or even eight strains? It likely cannot be accomplished with so few strains.  The oral probiotic stays for a little while, does its job, and then leaves.  Job done.  

Part of the definition of oral probiotics​ is proven efficacy in humans proven by reams of research, which, by the way, is why you want the genus, species, AND strain -- all three -- identified so that you can correlate the strain with the research.  Said another way, according to sources like the International Scientific Association of Prebiotics and Probiotics, a TRUE probiotic must have two things in particular in order to be legitimately called a probiotic: 1) genus, species, and strain identified, and 2) they must have proven oral benefit - including survival through the GI tract. If a product simply says on the label, for example, lactobacillus acidophilus, but no strain, then you cannot connect it to specific research, and thus, you don't know if it survives digestion or not, and you don't know what, if any, benefit it has in humans.  A product without the strain identified can probably rightly be called a bacteria, but NOT a probiotic.  If the strain is not identified on the label it is absolutely impossible to make any claim of being orally effective. 

Typically, part of the evaluation of a probiotic is observation of its traits (phenotype). The probiotic strain is tested for acid and bile tolerance. If tolerant, this is recorded. Once understood it is no longer necessary to test each generation of this proven strain trait. What is necessary is to test the DNA to ensure that each generation is the same as previous (genotype). 

The third factor to GI survival is the use of human microflora. As stated above, these species/strains ‘natively’ survive passage through the GI tract,​ as this is their normal abode. Once again, how do the hundreds of species of good flora get to the gut in the first place? Nearly a​ll orally. Ninety-percent of the bacteria that enters the body does so through the mouth. ​The genus/species of bacteria that live in our gut survive and thrive,​ as they are inherently adapted to do. 

As an example, consider the genus and species of one common probiotic family, ​Lactobacillus acidophilus.The latter term, acidophilus, is​ from the Latin, and refers to ​"acid-​loving."​
  

So, in short, yes, most probiotics survive digestion (some strains much better than others), even in very acidic stomachs.  And yes, part of the research in identifying a true probiotic is its effectiveness in humans. But again, colonization is not the true marker of a probiotic's effectiveness: strain-specific activity is.  And that is another reason why the genus, species, and strain listed on the bottle is so important.

In closing, I should add that some companies choose to list the strain in their promotional literature, but not on the bottles.  This, too, is a quality issue because by not listing it on the label of each bottle, companies don't have to prove that the strains are in THAT bottle or lot.  Companies who do random batch assays and then list the strains in their promotional literature are not proving anything in regards to all the different batches and bottles.  If a company lists the strains on the bottle, however, they have bound themselves to being able to provide documentation of the presence of those strains in that bottle and batch.

Amazing Novel Ingredients for Gut Healing

More than 70 million Americans suffer from chronic digestive disorders, and gastrointestinal issues are the most common reason for hospitalization.  

While there are a number of health promoting natural agents in nature's pharmacy, health science continues to uncover new and novel ingredients to heal the gut in unique ways.  

2-Fucosyllactose
Enter, then, 2-fucosyllactose (2-FL).  2-FL is a nature-identical Human Milk Oligosaccharide, the most abundant prebiotic found in human breast milk.

Several functions have been attributed to 2-FL, including the ability to support the growth of beneficial microbiota and significant increased production of short chain fatty acids, including butyrate, and the ability to increase and normalize motility.  

2-FL also works by blocking potentially harmful pathogenic bacteria from adhering to host cell receptors by acting as a decoy molecule.  In other words, instead of adhering to intestinal epithelial cells, pathogens will be attracted to the 2-FL, binding to it and hence being escorted out of the body in the stool.  In research, 2-FL has been shown to act as an anti-adhesive antimicrobial to campylobacter jejuni, vibrio cholera, E. coli, and norovirus.  

In fact, in a 6-week trial at the Functional Medicine Research Center (FMRC) in Gig Harbor, Washington, a functional food drink mix containing 2-FL was given to patients with previously diagnosed IBS, IBD, and celiac disease.  In that study, 8 potentially harmful bacteria were identified at baseline.  At the end of the study, 7 of the 8 total pathogen species were no longer detected.  

Butyrate and Short Chain Fatty Acids
Interest has been recently rekindled in short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) with the emergence of prebiotics and probiotics aimed at improving colonic and systemic health. SFCAs include the sum of butyrate, acetate, and propionate.  

Butyrate is the major energy source for colonocytes and is considered an anti-inflammatory fat. Butyrate also helps to support apoptosis of the cells lining the gut, and is the most important source of energy for those cells.  (More on butyrate here.)

Specific SCFA may reduce the risk of developing gastrointestinal disorders, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Acetate is the principal SCFA in the colon. Propionate, a gluconeogenerator, has been shown to inhibit cholesterol synthesis. 

In that same study at the FMRC featuring the functional food containing 2-FL, total SCFA increased by a mean of 72.2%, and butyrate alone increased by a mean of 72.7%, an amazing increase in these health-promoting fatty acids. 

Huge Bifidobacteria Proliferation   
It's one thing to give probiotics to help supply the GI with beneficial bacteria, and that is always a good thing.  But helping the bacteria that is already there to multiply is also extremely helpful for the microbiota.  

Isomalto-oligosaccharides (IMOs) are a prebiotic soluble fiber and help to increase the growth of bifidobacteria, which 2-FL also does.  In the aforementioned study on patients with previously diagnosed celiac, IBD, and IBS, bifidobacteria increased by an astounding 1900% in 6 weeks!  

It is no surprise, then, that patients in this study showed significantly improved quality of life scores.

A Better Form of L-Glutamine
Glutamine is an important amino acid for epithelial cell repair and function.  What is not as widely known is that L-glutamine in the free form, which is the most commonly used form, is not as well absorbed as the dipeptide version.  "Sustamine" is an L-Alanyl-L-Glutamine dipetide that is designed to be absorbed faster and with less energy than a single amino acid.  Dipetides and amino acids require a transporter to carried across the cell membranes.  This helps to facilitate absorption.  In fact, Sustamine has been shown to be absorbed 224% better than free from L-glutamine, possibly demonstrating better clinical outcomes at lower doses.  

This form of dipeptide L-glutamine is also featured in the functional food studied at the FMRC, and this, combined with the 2-FL, IMOs, and other supportive macro and micronutrients, makes it a very good choice for nutritional support for health conditions related to intestinal permeability, as well as providing excellent nutrition for celiac, IBD, and IBS patients.