Skip to content
DE

Postbiotics: effects, studies and how they differ from probiotics

Clinical review pending

How postbiotics differ from probiotics and prebiotics, which preparations have been studied, and where data on benefits and safety are still missing.

Editorial draft. The medical statements in the source text and the assignment of its references have not yet been independently checked; clinical sign-off is pending.

What are postbiotics?

Postbiotics are preparations of non-living microorganisms and/or their components that confer a health benefit. The organisms are deliberately inactivated: they are no longer alive, but their components can still be biologically active. Source

Postbiotics have had a scientific consensus definition only since 2021, and marketing often runs ahead of the research. Older terms that were used inconsistently, such as “paraprobiotic,” “ghost probiotics” and “tyndallized probiotic,” are now grouped under the heading of postbiotics. Fermented foods such as yogurt, kimchi and kefir have always contained postbiotic components alongside their live cultures, so people have been consuming these components for thousands of years without having a name for them. There are also two related categories. Probiotics contain live organisms, measured in colony-forming units. Prebiotics are substrates that gut bacteria use as food. These differences matter for both effects and safety. Source 1 Source 2

What postbiotics are made of

Postbiotics have no single chemical composition. What defines them is where they come from and the fact that the microorganisms have been inactivated, not any particular molecule. According to the scientific literature, postbiotic preparations can include heat-inactivated whole bacteria and isolated cell wall components. The cell wall components include peptidoglycans and lipoteichoic acids, which interact with the host’s immune receptors to dampen inflammatory signaling. The bacterial metabolites include short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), namely butyrate, propionate and acetate, which act as signaling molecules in the gut and other tissues. The effects of butyrate depend especially heavily on context, so the marketing slogan “fuel for your gut” oversimplifies things. Other components include bacteriocins, exopolysaccharides and indoles. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4

Where postbiotics come from

Fermented foods are the oldest source. Yogurt, kimchi and kefir naturally supply postbiotic components alongside live cultures; the two have always occurred together in traditional foods. Modern postbiotic supplements are produced by deliberate inactivation. Heat treatment is the most common method, but ultrasound, enzymatic treatment and chemical inactivation are also used, depending on the target component. The term “postbiotic” itself was formalized in 2021 by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP). Before that, inconsistent terminology made research findings hard to compare. Postbiotic research has expanded quickly since this consensus, while marketing and scientific knowledge do not always line up. Traditionally fermented foods in every culture have long supplied these components as part of the whole food. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4

How postbiotics work

Postbiotics do not work through a single pathway. How they act depends on the component: cell wall fragments, metabolites and whole inactivated bacteria affect the body through different biological routes.

Mechanism of action

The postbiotic literature has identified three main mechanisms. One proposed mechanism is that cell wall components, especially peptidoglycan (a building block of the bacterial cell wall) and lipoteichoic acid (a component of the bacterial cell wall), bind to Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR-2) on immune cells. This modulates NF-κB signaling and the downstream production of inflammatory cytokines. In cell and animal models, lipoteichoic acid from postbiotics of Lactobacillus origin has been shown to dampen colitis-related inflammation through this TLR pathway. Second, SCFAs send signals through the free fatty acid receptors FFAR2 and FFAR3 (also called GPR43 and GPR41). At higher concentrations, butyrate also inhibits histone deacetylase (HDAC) and so influences gene expression. Because of this dual signaling role, butyrate-producing bacteria have been linked to protecting gut health. Butyrate is the most clinically studied short-chain fatty acid, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exist for it. A 2024 study in active ulcerative colitis found that butyrate supplementation modulated circadian clock genes, sleep quality and inflammatory markers. Third, heat-inactivated whole-bacteria preparations keep their immunomodulatory activity through their intact cell walls and intracellular components. Lacticaseibacillus paracasei MCC1849, for example, has been shown to activate immune signaling without any need for live cells. The mechanisms described involve the immune system, metabolism and the gut barrier. How well they are supported in humans, however, varies considerably depending on the effect being studied. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6 Source 7

Absorption and distribution in the body

Heat-inactivated whole-bacteria preparations are not absorbed into the bloodstream. They act locally in the gut lumen and in contact with the immune system of the intestinal lining. SCFAs behave differently: taken by mouth, butyrate is absorbed quickly in the upper digestive tract and undergoes substantial first-pass metabolism in the liver. To get butyrate to the colon, where it matters most, microencapsulated sodium butyrate formulations are used to avoid early absorption. Microencapsulation is now used both in clinical settings and in over-the-counter oral butyrate. The fact that postbiotics contain no live organisms is an important advantage for absorption and dosing. Unlike live probiotics, postbiotics do not have to survive stomach acid, bile salts or storage conditions. This stability makes dosing more predictable and extends shelf life, two practical advantages over products containing live organisms. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

What the studies show

Research on postbiotics is growing. Its findings, however, apply to specific strains and preparations and cannot be extended to all products. The strongest single piece of evidence comes from a multicenter RCT of heat-inactivated B. bifidum MIMBb75 in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Even that trial does not allow conclusions about other inactivated organisms or other postbiotic products.

Evidence grades used in this section:

  • Strong: >=2 well-designed human RCTs on a clinically meaningful endpoint.

  • Moderate: >=1 human RCT with a clinically meaningful endpoint, or several smaller RCTs with mixed results.

  • Limited: only small or methodologically weak human studies, or only observational data.

  • Animal / preclinical only: no completed human studies.

  • Anecdotal: no controlled studies; case reports, mechanistic plausibility or marketing claims not supported by published data.

Improvement in IBS symptoms (heat-inactivated B. bifidum MIMBb75), moderate

This trial currently provides the strongest single RCT evidence on postbiotics. A multicenter, double-blind study of 443 IBS patients found that heat-inactivated Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 achieved the composite symptom endpoint in 34% of patients, compared with 19% on placebo (p = 0.0007). Another study compared live and heat-treated Bifidobacterium longum CECT 7347 in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and found that the heat-treated form kept efficacy comparable to the live strain. The key caveat: these results are strain-specific. They do not carry over to other postbiotic products, other heat-inactivated bacteria, or postbiotic supplements whose labels do not state the strain identity. Source 1 Source 2

Immune modulation in healthy adults: limited to moderate

A 2024 RCT of heat-killed Lacticaseibacillus paracasei MCC1849 showed measurable changes in immune parameters in healthy adults. The mechanistic basis, TLR-mediated signaling via intact cell wall components, is supported by in vitro and food application research on the same strain. The studies, however, measure different immune markers, which makes them hard to compare. Whether this leads to clinically relevant benefits, such as fewer infections in healthy adults, is so far poorly supported. Source 1 Source 2

Preventing infections in children: limited to moderate

A systematic review of postbiotics in children found promising signals for preventing and treating common infectious diseases in childhood. Use in premature or other infants requires medical advice and is not suitable for self-treatment. A 2024 pilot RCT of heat-killed Pediococcus acidilactici K15 in premature infants did not significantly reduce days with fever; only an exploratory subgroup hinted at a benefit for respiratory infections. This marks a significant difference from live probiotics: in populations where introducing live organisms carries a risk, inactivating the organisms offers a safety advantage. Sample sizes remain small, and the findings need to be confirmed in further studies. Source 1 Source 2

Stress, sleep and mood: limited

A small RCT (n=60) of heat-inactivated Lactobacillus gasseri CP2305 in stressed medical students found modest improvements in anxiety scores, sleep quality and salivary chromogranin A, a stress biomarker. The observed effects were small. The study was small, used surrogate endpoints, and its results have not been widely reproduced in independent cohorts. These findings are therefore of only limited use as a basis for a purchasing decision. Source

SCFA/butyrate supplementation for gut and metabolic health: limited to moderate

A 2024 RCT in active ulcerative colitis found that butyrate supplementation modulated inflammatory markers and circadian clock gene expression. An observational survey of about 2,990 patients taking microencapsulated sodium butyrate reported lower IBS symptom scores, although the study was uncontrolled and relied on self-reports, which limits causal conclusions. Butyrate’s effects cannot be judged across the board. A comprehensive review describes it as a “double-edged sword” whose effects depend on context, not as a universal gut booster. Most of the positive studies were done in people with a disease, and the data do not yet support extending the findings to healthy adults. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

What is not established: postbiotics do not replace standard medical treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), irritable bowel syndrome or other gastrointestinal conditions. They do not “restore” a damaged microbiome; that wording has no mechanistic basis in the postbiotic literature. As of May 2026, no postbiotic product has an FDA-approved indication for any clinical use. Above all, strain-specific results are not transferable: a positive RCT for heat-inactivated B. bifidum MIMBb75 says nothing about a different heat-killed organism in a different product.

Forms and quality markers

With postbiotics, the specific form matters. A heat-inactivated whole-cell preparation, an isolated cell wall component and a microencapsulated metabolite act differently, and the evidence for each differs as well.

Heat-inactivated bacterial powders are the most common form of postbiotic supplement. Judging them requires the exact strain designation. Genus and species alone, such as “Lactobacillus acidophilus,” are not enough, because RCT evidence is always strain-specific. The certificate of analysis (COA) should include the full strain designation, and the manufacturing method should be disclosed, for example heat inactivation, ultrasound or enzymatic treatment. As of 2026, isolated cell wall components such as peptidoglycan and lipoteichoic acid are found more often in research-grade preparations than in consumer supplements.

The range of microencapsulated sodium butyrate for consumers is growing. The encapsulation matters functionally: without it, butyrate is absorbed before it reaches the colon. The certificate of analysis should include details of the encapsulation method and release profile. For a food-based approach, yogurt, kefir and kimchi naturally supply postbiotic components along with live cultures and fermentable fiber, a matrix that no single supplement fully reproduces. Independent lab testing of active ingredient content and transparency about the manufacturing method are the two quality markers that matter most across all postbiotic forms. Source

Regulatory status

As of May 2026, postbiotics sold in the United States are regulated as dietary supplements under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). This means manufacturers are responsible for safety and labeling, and the FDA does not approve postbiotic products before they go on the market. The 2021 ISAPP consensus statement is the authoritative scientific definition of the postbiotic category, but ISAPP is a scientific association, not a regulatory agency. Its definition carries scientific weight but has no legal force. “Postbiotic” has been a formal scientific category only since 2021, and marketing often goes beyond the available evidence. No postbiotic product has an FDA-approved indication for any clinical condition. In the European Union, certain postbiotic preparations may fall under the Novel Food framework of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which sets separate and stricter requirements before products can be placed on the market. Source

Safety profile

In the human studies carried out so far, postbiotics have shown a favorable safety profile. The most clinically significant safety advantage is the absence of live organisms, a difference that matters above all for people with weakened immune systems, in whom live probiotics carry documented, if rare, risks.

Reported side effects

The adverse events reported in RCTs were mostly mild. At higher doses, mild digestive complaints occurred, including more gas and bloating. In low-dose studies, side effect rates barely differed from placebo. Pilot data in premature infants also point to a favorable safety profile in people with vulnerable immune systems, and a systematic review in children likewise supports the tolerability of the common preparations studied so far. These results reflect the populations and doses examined in studies. They are not a blanket safety recommendation for every postbiotic preparation at every dose. Adverse events should always be interpreted in the context of the specific preparation, dose and population. Source 1 Source 2

Drug interactions

  • Immunosuppressants: theoretically minor interactions. For anyone being treated after a transplant or taking biologics for an autoimmune disease, a doctor should check whether the immunomodulatory effect is relevant. Clinical interactions at usual supplement doses have not been documented so far.

  • Documented serious interactions: none at usual supplement doses. The published literature documents no significant pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic drug interactions for postbiotic preparations at the doses used in a supplement context.

Overall, there are few data on interactions between postbiotics and medicines. This is partly because the product category is still young; as research continues, the literature on interactions is likely to grow too. For complex medication regimens, a review by a doctor is appropriate.

Pregnancy, breastfeeding and organ function

There are no controlled human data on taking postbiotics at supplement doses during pregnancy or breastfeeding. In both situations, medical advice before use is appropriate. No compound-specific safety concerns have been documented for liver or kidney impairment, but the data are sparse, and absence of evidence does not rule out risk. For particular groups, one point is especially relevant: in people with weakened immune systems, postbiotics offer a considerable safety advantage over live probiotics. Data in premature infants show postbiotic tolerability in a high-risk population in which supplementing with live organisms would carry a substantially higher risk. This is the clearest difference the source describes between postbiotics and live microorganisms for specific groups. Source

Who needs to be especially careful?

Several groups should not start taking postbiotics without medical supervision.

  • Pregnancy and breastfeeding: controlled human safety data are lacking for supplement doses.

  • Active inflammatory bowel disease or severe IBS flares: use belongs under medical supervision, and the underlying condition needs to be investigated first.

  • People with weakened immune systems who take biologic immunosuppressants: the decision should be made by a doctor, even though postbiotics are described as safer than live probiotics for this group.

  • Known allergy to the organisms used for fermentation: the label information on the source organisms is especially important.

  • In children, strain-specific evidence is required; adult doses cannot be transferred to children.

If any of these applies, get medical advice before starting. The full medication list and any existing lab results should be taken into account.

Postbiotics vs. probiotics vs. prebiotics

The three terms are often mixed up in marketing. Each category has its own ISAPP consensus definition, its own mechanism and its own evidence base, and the right choice depends on the specific health goal.

  • Source / chemistry. Probiotics are live microorganisms that, when given in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host. Prebiotics are substrates that are selectively used by host microorganisms to produce a health benefit. Under the same ISAPP framework, postbiotics are preparations of inactivated microbes that still provide a benefit to the host. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

  • Bioavailability and survival. Probiotics have to survive stomach acid, bile salts and storage as living organisms, a considerable biological hurdle. Prebiotics are fibers that reach the colon intact for fermentation. Postbiotics do not need to be viable, so survival of the organisms is not a criterion for them.

  • Strongest evidence. Probiotics have an extensive strain-specific RCT base across various conditions. Prebiotics have a solid evidence base for fiber-related SCFA production and metabolic markers. Postbiotics have a still-young body of studies; the lead trial is a 2020 multicenter IBS RCT (N=443) that showed a response rate of 34% versus 19%. Source

  • Dose range studied. Probiotics: 10⁹–10¹¹ CFU/day (strain-dependent). Prebiotics: 3–10 g/day for SCFA production. Postbiotics: 10⁹–10¹⁰ cell equivalents/day for heat-killed bacterial preparations in the IBS RCT, or typical product doses of about 150–600 mg/day for microencapsulated sodium butyrate. Source

  • Key safety differences. Probiotics carry a rare but documented risk of bacteremia in immunocompromised hosts. Prebiotics can cause more gas, bloating and a FODMAP-related digestive flare. Postbiotics remove the risk posed by live organisms, which is an important advantage for people with weakened immune systems.

  • Cost (relative). Probiotics: $–$$. Prebiotics: $ (fiber). Postbiotics: $$–$$$ (newer category, less commercialized).

  • Regulatory status. All three are DSHEA dietary supplements in the United States; none of these categories has FDA-approved indications (as of May 2026).

For IBS symptoms, according to the source text, the recent RCT of heat-inactivated B. bifidum MIMBb75 provides the highest-quality evidence for that specific strain. If the main goal is producing short-chain fatty acids from fiber, prebiotics and a diet rich in fermented foods are the more direct approach. For people with weakened immune systems, postbiotics offer a real safety advantage over live probiotics, one supported by clinical data. In this context, the biomarker that says the most objectively about systemic inflammation is hs-CRP. If IBD-adjacent symptoms are present, fecal calprotectin should be measured before any decision about supplementation.

Which lab values the source text names for tracking progress

The proposed mechanisms of postbiotics (immune modulation via TLR signaling, SCFA receptor activation and support for the gut barrier) are linked to specific measurable markers. The source text describes baseline measurements and a retest after 8–12 weeks as the only objective way to tell a real effect from placebo effects or natural fluctuations.

  • hs-CRP: the primary marker of systemic inflammation. If TLR-mediated immune modulation occurs at usual supplement doses, a drop in hs-CRP over 8–12 weeks is the most direct signal that can be measured in the blood.

  • HbA1c: a measure of average blood sugar over 3 months. SCFA signaling has been linked to improved insulin sensitivity in preclinical and small clinical work; a retest after 12 weeks covers the relevant period.

  • Fasting insulin: an earlier indicator of changes in insulin sensitivity than HbA1c. Given butyrate’s proposed effects on glucose metabolism, changes might show up here before HbA1c moves. Source

  • LDL-C: SCFA signaling has been linked to modest lipid effects in some studies. Retest after 8–12 weeks; the effect size in healthy adults is expected to be small.

  • Fecal calprotectin, if IBD-adjacent symptoms are present: a raised calprotectin level is a reason for medical evaluation, not a sign that postbiotics are needed. It can point to intestinal inflammation that has to be investigated before anyone takes postbiotics.

Measuring baseline values before starting postbiotic supplementation, especially hs-CRP and the metabolic markers, gives objective reference points that make any later change interpretable. Without a baseline, the source says, a change cannot be told apart from placebo effects or from unusual values drifting back toward the average. Postbiotics add one more problem: if there is no RCT on the specific strain and preparation, there is no established effect size to compare against.

When symptoms call for more than a supplement

Persistent digestive symptoms (unintended weight loss, blood in the stool, alternating diarrhea and constipation lasting longer than 2–4 weeks, or symptoms at night) should be examined by a doctor rather than self-treated with supplements. The source text lists, first, an evaluation by a primary care doctor, then a referral to a gastroenterologist if needed, fecal calprotectin to check for intestinal inflammation, and classification of the IBS subtype according to current guidelines. A postbiotic supplement is not a diagnostic tool.

In a supplement category this young, where strain-specific findings have not yet been generalized to all products, a baseline measurement is the most reliable place to start.

Frequently asked questions

What are postbiotics?

Postbiotics are preparations of non-living microorganisms and/or their components that confer a health benefit. Unlike probiotics (live microorganisms) and prebiotics (food for beneficial bacteria), postbiotics provide health benefits through non-living bacterial material or its by-products. Source

Is there evidence that postbiotics work?

The evidence applies to specific strains. Heat-inactivated Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 has been studied in the strongest single RCT (N=443; 34% vs. 19% reached the composite endpoint for relief of IBS symptoms). For other postbiotic preparations, there are only small or preliminary studies. Heat-inactivated Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 reached the composite symptom endpoint in the IBS trial, while other postbiotic studies on stress, sleep, immune function and childhood infections generally showed moderate to small effects. More research is needed to establish broader clinical benefits. Source

What dose of postbiotics has been used in studies?

Studies have used different doses depending on the type of postbiotic. Heat-killed bacterial preparations were typically dosed at the equivalent of 10^9–10^10 cells/day, while SCFA postbiotics such as sodium butyrate were dosed at 150–600 mg/day. Duration and participant groups differ between studies. The products are not uniformly standardized, so their labeling matters when judging the dose.

What are the side effects of postbiotics?

Postbiotic preparations have shown a favorable safety profile in human studies, with mild digestive symptoms such as more gas and bloating occurring mainly at higher doses. A systematic review in children supports their tolerability in vulnerable populations, including premature infants, which sets postbiotics apart from live probiotics. Source 1 Source 2

Are postbiotics FDA-approved?

Postbiotics are not approved by the FDA as drugs. They are sold as dietary supplements under DSHEA with no FDA-approved indication. The term “postbiotic” became a formal scientific category only in 2021, which is why its use in marketing varies so widely.

What is the difference between postbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics?

Probiotics are live microorganisms that provide benefits. Prebiotics are substrates selectively used by host microorganisms. Postbiotics are inanimate microbes and/or their components. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Postbiotics offer advantages such as stability, shelf life, precise dosing and safety in people with weakened immune systems.

Who should avoid postbiotics?

Postbiotics are generally well tolerated, and no major drug interactions have been documented at usual supplement doses. Certain groups should still be careful:

  • Pregnant and breastfeeding people: the data are sparse. Talk to a doctor before use.

  • People with active digestive diseases: in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), symptoms should be examined by a doctor. Postbiotic supplementation during active flares should be coordinated by a doctor.

Which blood tests should I get before trying postbiotics?

The most informative markers before starting postbiotic supplementation are hs-CRP, HbA1c, fasting insulin and LDL-C. Together they track the proposed metabolic and inflammation-modulating mechanisms. If IBD-adjacent symptoms are what prompted your interest, fecal calprotectin is the additional marker (and a signal for clinical evaluation).

Sources and references from the source text

  • Salminen S, Collado MC, Endo A, Hill C, Lebeer S, Quigley EMM, Sanders ME, Shamir R, Swann JR, Szajewska H, Vinderola G (2021). The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 18(9), 649-667. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-021-00440-6

  • Vinderola G, Sanders ME, Salminen S (2022). The Concept of Postbiotics. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11081077

  • Marco ML, Sanders ME, Gänzle M, Arrieta MC, Cotter PD, De Vuyst L, Hill C, Holzapfel W, Lebeer S, Merenstein D, Reid G, Wolfe BE, Hutkins R (2021). The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on fermented foods. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 18(3), 196-208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-020-00390-5

  • Scott E, De Paepe K, Van de Wiele T (2022). Postbiotics and Their Health Modulatory Biomolecules. Biomolecules, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12111640

  • Pradhan D, Gulati G, Avadhani R, H M R, Soumya K, Kumari A, Gupta A, Dwivedi D, Kaushik JK, Grover S (2023). Postbiotic Lipoteichoic acid of probiotic Lactobacillus origin ameliorates inflammation in HT-29 cells and colitis mice. International journal of biological macromolecules, 236, 123962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.123962

  • Gill PA, van Zelm MC, Muir JG, Gibson PR (2018). Review article: short chain fatty acids as potential therapeutic agents in human gastrointestinal and inflammatory disorders. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 48(1), 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14689

  • Liu H, Wang J, He T, Becker S, Zhang G, Li D, Ma X (2018). Butyrate: A Double-Edged Sword for Health?. Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 9(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmx009

  • Liang B, Xing D (2023). The Current and Future Perspectives of Postbiotics. Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 15(6), 1626-1643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-023-10045-x

  • Stelmach V, Stavrou G, Theodorou I, Semertzidou E, Tzikos G, Menni AE, Shrewsbury A, Ioannidis A, Kotzampassi K (2024). Postbiotics: Mapping the Trend. Nutrients, 16(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16183077

  • Vera-Santander VE, Hernández-Figueroa RH, Jiménez-Munguía MT, Mani-López E, López-Malo A (2023). Health Benefits of Consuming Foods with Bacterial Probiotics, Postbiotics, and Their Metabolites: A Review. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 28(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28031230

  • Jastrząb R, Graczyk D, Siedlecki P (2021). Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms Influenced by Postbiotics. International journal of molecular sciences, 22(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222413475

  • Singh V, Lee G, Son H, Koh H, Kim ES, Unno T, Shin JH (2022). Butyrate producers, ‘The Sentinel of Gut’: Their intestinal significance with and beyond butyrate, and prospective use as microbial therapeutics. Frontiers in microbiology, 13, 1103836. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1103836

  • Hodgkinson K, El Abbar F, Dobranowski P, Manoogian J, Butcher J, Figeys D, Mack D, Stintzi A (2023). Butyrate’s role in human health and the current progress towards its clinical application to treat gastrointestinal disease. Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(2), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.10.024

  • Firoozi D, Masoumi SJ, Mohammad-Kazem Hosseini Asl S, Labbe A, Razeghian-Jahromi I, Fararouei M, Lankarani KB, Dara M (2024). Effects of short-chain fatty acid-butyrate supplementation on expression of circadian-clock genes, sleep quality, and inflammation in patients with active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Lipids in health and disease, 23(1), 216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02203-z

  • Maehata H, Arai S, Iwabuchi N, Abe F (2021). Immuno-modulation by heat-killed. International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology, 35, 20587384211008291. https://doi.org/10.1177/20587384211008291

  • Ma L, Tu H, Chen T (2023). Postbiotics in Human Health: A Narrative Review. Nutrients, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020291

  • Lewandowski K, Kaniewska M, Karłowicz K, Rosołowski M, Rydzewska G (2022). The effectiveness of microencapsulated sodium butyrate at reducing symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Przeglad gastroenterologiczny, 17(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.5114/pg.2021.112681

  • Żółkiewicz J, Marzec A, Ruszczyński M, Feleszko W (2020). Postbiotics-A Step Beyond Pre- and Probiotics. Nutrients, 12(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082189

  • Andresen V, Gschossmann J, Layer P (2020). Heat-inactivated Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 (SYN-HI-001) in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 5(7), 658-666. 30056-X). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30056-X

  • Srivastava S, Basak U, Naghibi M, Vijayakumar V, Parihar R, Patel J, Jadon PS, Pandit A, Dargad RR, Khanna S, Kumar S, Day R (2024). A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live. Gut microbes, 16(1), 2338322. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2024.2338322

  • Kato K, Arai S, Sato S, Iwabuchi N, Takara T, Tanaka M (2024). Effects of Heat-Killed. Nutrients, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16020216

  • Malagón-Rojas JN, Mantziari A, Salminen S, Szajewska H (2020). Postbiotics for Preventing and Treating Common Infectious Diseases in Children: A Systematic Review. Nutrients, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12020389

  • Takeshita K, Hishiki H, Takei H, Ikari N, Tanaka S, Iijima Y, Ogata H, Fujishiro K, Tominaga T, Konno Y, Iwase Y, Nakano T, Endo M, Ishiwada N, Osone Y, Kawaguchi T, Horiba T, Takemura R, Hamada H, Shimojo N (2024). The Effectiveness of Heat-Killed. Nutrients, 16(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16213635

  • Nishida K, Sawada D, Kuwano Y, Tanaka H, Rokutan K (2019). Health Benefits of Lactobacillus gasseri CP2305 Tablets in Young Adults Exposed to Chronic Stress: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Nutrients, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081859

  • Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Morelli L, Canani RB, Flint HJ, Salminen S, Calder PC, Sanders ME (2014). Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 11(8), 506-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66

  • Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME, Prescott SL, Reimer RA, Salminen SJ, Scott K, Stanton C, Swanson KS, Cani PD, Verbeke K, Reid G (2017). Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 14(8), 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75

Origin and editorial review status

Translated and prepared for Nutrient Desk from the source article. Promotional membership, newsletter and lab offers have been removed. The bibliography is kept in its original form so that each work can be identified unambiguously. Figures and source references were carried over; whether each piece of evidence supports the specific statement it is attached to must be checked before publication. This draft is not cleared for indexing.