ReviewMicroorganisms2025
Probiotic Viability Reconsidered: Integrating VBNC Resuscitation and Culture-Independent Methods for Accurate Probiotic Enumeration.
Review in Microorganisms, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stress physiology and matrix-mediated delivery of probiotic microorganisms: translational challenges and strategies for industrial biomanufacturing.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Probiotic-Plant Bioactive Synergy in Gut Health: Mechanisms, Antimicrobial Activity, and Translational Challenges.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Exploring the Diversity and Applications of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Tunisian Traditional Fermented Foods.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Storage stability ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Next-generation probiotic delivery: Engineering complex coacervation systems for targeted gut release and bioactive synergy.Current research in food science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Probiotic enumeration in foods and beverages remains anchored in culture dependent colony-forming unit (CFU) counts, the regulatory gold standard for label compliance. However, culturability does not fully equate to viability as environmental stresses can convert probiotic cells into a viable but non-culturable (VBNC) state, where they remain metabolically active but undetectable by CFU counts. Microencapsulation can provide a degree of protection to probiotics against stress; nevertheless, this blind spot in quantification forces manufacturers to overdose formulations or risk non-compliance with health benefits claims. Thus, the efficacy of probiotics may be underestimated when evaluation relies solely on CFU, creating a false dichotomy between VBNC and non-viable cells. Culture-independent methods, including flow cytometry quantification of active fluorescent units (AFUs), viability PCR/dPCR, and rRNA-targeted Flow-FISH, can aid closing this gap by detecting metabolically active cells non-detectable by culturing, providing complementary quantification data to CFU counts alone. Understanding the relationship between quantification by culture and culture-independent methods provides a more accurate measure of probiotic dose delivery in functional foods and beverages. This review covers the current understanding of VBNC state, including induction, detection, and resuscitation in probiotics, with emphasis on experimental controls that differentiate true VBNC resuscitation from population growth. Case studies in
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.