Overall, our findings clearly show that with the use of the pasteurized form, there was no loss of therapeutic potency of A. muciniphila, compared to its live form.
In conclusion, the above our outcomes displayed that A. muciniphila improved body weight, plasma biochemical and inflammatory markers, and morphology of vital tissues. The administration of both alive and pasteurized A. muciniphila , significantly promote gut, adipose, and liver health by modulating immune response and lipid metabolism as well as intestinal homeostasis by improving gut barrier functions and intestine microbiota composition in the study groups. According to better health effects of pasteurized A. muciniphila , use of the pasteurized form as a new strategy seems to be a valid, safe, and potentially more cost-effective medication to improve the host’s health and reduce the risk of metabolic disorders.
I just don’t understand how dead bacteria can have beneficial effects. I thought the mechanism of benefit comes from the metabolism of the live bacteria in the gut. I am definitely missing something here.
My turn to apologize, because I didn’t mean to point that question at you as if you are the advocate. I was just surprised while reading this thread of the multiple references to dead bacteria potentially showing a benefit. I’d be interested in trying pasteurized bacteria if I understood the mechanism of benefit. To me a pasteurized probiotic is an oxymoron, so I’d truly learn something if I could wrap my head around the concept.
It is known that the impairment of homeostasis and the integrity of the intestinal barrier result in the development of metabolic and gastrointestinal disorders (18, 19). The intestinal mucosal barrier has evolved to maintain a balance between the absorption of essential nutrients and the prevention of pathogen translocation (20). The integrity of the intestinal epithelium is maintained by tight junctions (TJs), adherens junctions (AJs), and desmosome complexes of the epithelium, whose expression can be increased by probiotics or compounds produced by them, such as extracellular vesicles (EVs) or outer membrane microvesicles (OMVs) in the case of Gram-negative bacteria (21–23).
Interestingly, several studies have indicated that the outer membrane compounds of A. muciniphila , or pasteurized bacteria, have greater therapeutic potential for metabolic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases than live A. muciniphila (36–38).
So it is not the bacterium itself that provides the benefits, but its outer membrane. So live or pasteurized does not affect its ability to provide health benefits.
A caveat about live akkermansia
Although A. muciniphila is a common component of the human and murine gastrointestinal tracts and has a beneficial role for the integrity of the intestinal mucosa, when intestinal dysbiosis occurs, the colonization by A. muciniphila can exacerbate the inflammation (11, 33).
It seems that one can get akkermansia from kombucha.
We found that all nine kombuchas also contained varying levels of enteric bacteria including Bacteroides thetaiotamicron , Escherischia coli , Enterococcus faecalis , Bacteroides fragilis , Enterobacter cloacae complex , and Akkermansia muciniphila .
Any particular reason that you linked to this? The internet is full of marketing schemes and people looking to capitalize on the health craze…why this? And is there any connection to Akkermansia other than glucose control?
I’m note sure about her supplement, but I heard a post cast with here a year or so ago and she had a lot of principles (how to sequence foods, when and how to add post meal movement, etc) that actually ended up working for me when I tried them.
So there might be valuable learnings from her - as someone who has devoted years to find approaches to modulate glucose spikes.
Back on the subject of akkermansia, if one is hoping that the Pendulum product will ‘take’ after a few months and you can discontinue, the study they did to show effectiveness seems to imply that’s not likely to happen.
This chart shows the frequency of detection at baseline, and 4, 12, and 16 weeks. (16 weeks is 4 weeks after end of study.)
WBF-011 is the arm that had akkermansia in the formulation. AMUC is akkermansia. Per the plot, only 20% of the participants had any detectible level 4 weeks after study end.
Something I don’t understand is that it seems like that same panel in the graph is saying that zero percent had any Akk bacteria before the study began?
Did they have that as an inclusion criteria?
Otherwise something seems off or to be normalized in some way…
For example, in both my pre Pendulum GDX and Viome microbiome tests Akk bacteria were detected (though GDX provided levels and they were low). More generally, my understanding was that a much greater part of the population has Akk with supplementation than the zero level in that chart…