1. Introduction
Individuals who engage in strenuous exercise are more likely to experience upper respiratory tract and gastrointestinal illness, especially diarrhea, during heavy training and competitions such as a marathon [1,2,3,4]. Strenuous exercise causes immunosuppression by reducing the function of immune cells, thus increasing susceptibility to viral infection [5,6]. Gastrointestinal illness is typically characterized by belching, bloating, flatulence, side stitch, abdominal cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, the urge to defecate during exercise, nausea, and loss of appetite [7,8]. Respiratory illness is often characterized by throat soreness, sneezing, a blocked or runny nose, and cough [8]. Athletes may be more at risk of infection during heavy training [9,10,11], possibly because of the suppression of mucosal immunity, which, in turn, increases susceptibility to gastrointestinal and respiratory illness [2], or alternatively because of the combined effects of small changes in several immune parameters [12]. Therefore, elite athletes are required to reduce the risk of infection and shortly recover from susceptibility to gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms. Evidence increasingly indicates that probiotic supplementation can prevent and alleviate gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections (common cold and influenza) in healthy individuals and have an influence on body defense [13,14].
The term probiotic is used for products that deliver the required number of viable cells of bacterial strains that can benefit the health of a host by changing the composition of the host’s gut microbiota [15,16,17,18]. Probiotics mainly serve as supplements [19] containing multiple species (e.g., Bacillus subtilis, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum ES1, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, Enterococcus faecium W54, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus brevis W63, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus helveticus, Lactococcus lactis, Lactobacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus plantarum TWK10, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus salivarius, and Streptococcus thermophilus) and are usually prepared in the form of capsules [8,20,21,22,23], powder sticks [24,25], sachets [26], and fermented drinks [27].
Cytokines, which are small peptides facilitating the influx of lymphocytes, neutrophils, monocytes, and other cells, are released from sites of inflammation and are involved in the response to infections or tissue injury [28,29,30]. Probiotics have been reported to modulate inflammation and systemic immune responses in experimental animals, such as by affecting defense mechanisms and the release of several cytokines (e.g., tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interferon (IFN)-γ) [31,32]. Probiotics can also improve several inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers [33]. The balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines, which regulate immune cell homeostasis, is dynamic and ever-shifting in the human immune system [34,35]. The cytokines initially involved in a cytokine storm include TNF-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and IL-10 [36]. High-intensity long-duration exercise can lead to higher levels of inflammatory mediators, including IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, and thus increase the risk of injury and chronic inflammation [37,38]. IL-2 is considered a key growth and death factor for antigen-activated T lymphocytes [39]. IL-4 is associated with type 2 inflammation, which is related to parasite infection and chronic diseases, including asthma and atopic dermatitis [40]. A systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated an elevation in IL-1β, IL-8, IL-10, and TNF-α levels; a reduction in IL-2 and IFN-γ levels; and no change in the IL-4 level after long-distance running [41]. However, TNF-α plays a crucial role in several physiological and pathological conditions related to its action in inflammation and leukocyte movement [42]. IL-6 is a cytokine present in circulation during exercise. A study reported that after a person took probiotics, their IL-6 level increased exponentially in response to exercise and declined during the postexercise period [28]. Salivary immunoglobulin A (IgA) as a biomarker is associated with the incidence of infection; its low level or a substantial transitory decline is related to an increase in the incidence of upper respiratory tract diseases [43]. Probiotics increased mucosal salivary IFN-γ, IgA1, and IgA2 levels in healthy adults [44]. However, evidence from clinical trials regarding the effects of probiotic supplementation on immune and inflammatory markers in athletes is lacking. Scholars have reported inconsistent results. Several studies have reported no significant change after probiotic supplementation [20,23,25]. By contrast, some studies demonstrated that the TNF-α level was lower in both sexes after probiotic supplementation [22] and observed a significantly decreased IL-6 level and increased IL-10 level in a probiotic group compared with a placebo group [21]. Moreover, probiotic supplementation attenuated acute exercise-induced changes in both anti-inflammatory and proinflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IFN-γ, and TNF-α) in male and female athletes [8,45].
This study determined the effect of probiotics on inflammation-related markers (TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IFN-γ, salivary IgA, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, and C-reactive protein (CRP)) in athletes by examining the levels of these markers before and after exercise in probiotic and placebo groups.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Sources
The review protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022302897), and our findings are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. A research librarian systematically searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CEPS, and Embase from the inception to 12 May 2022. Citations were managed using Endnote version 20.1 (Clarivate Corp., Philadelphia, PA, USA; London, UK).
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
Clinical trials that included healthy human athletes involved in any sport and of any sex, age range, and race and that provided original pre-exercise and postexercise blood data were eligible. We considered interventions involving the administration of probiotics that contained alone or multiple mixed species and were prepared in all forms, including capsules or sticks. Studies that administered to their control group a placebo that was manufactured to be identical to the probiotics in packaging, encapsulation, and taste were eligible for inclusion.
We excluded clinical trials that met one of the following criteria: (1) did not include athletes, (2) were designed as nonparallel randomized clinical trials (RCTs), (3) had only a single arm, (4) did not examine inflammation-related markers, (5) had an intervention period of <14 days, (6) included patients with diseases as the study population, and (7) combined other supplements or medication in their intervention. Furthermore, we excluded studies that measured inflammation-related markers only after the probiotic supplementation.
2.3. Data Selection and Extraction
One researcher (YTG) searched for relevant RCTs published in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Electronic Periodical Services (CEPS) databases from their inception until May 2022. Another researcher (YCP) evaluated the selected RCTs. The researchers were blinded to each other’s decisions. The outcomes were reviewed by two researchers. All retrieved abstracts, studies, and citations were reviewed. The decisions of the two researchers were compared, and if the two reviewers could not reach a consensus, any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third researcher (WHH).
The two researchers (YTG and YCP) independently extracted data. If data were only presented graphically, values were estimated from figures by using WebPlotDigitizer version 4.5 [46]. Finally, data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
2.4. Outcomes
The pre-exercise and postexercise blood levels of inflammation-related markers in the probiotic and placebo groups were measured to determine the effect of probiotics. To perform a meta-analysis, we excluded the outcomes of specific cytokines, which were only measured in one RCT.
2.5. Assessment of Risk of Bias
The two reviewers (YTG and YCP) independently determined the risk of bias by using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, version 2 (RoB 2.0) (Bristol, England) in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.2.12; this tool measures the potential for bias arising from five domains: the randomization process, deviation from the intended intervention, missing outcome data, outcome measurement, and selection of reported results. Possible responses were “yes”, “probably yes”, “probably no”, “no”, and “no information”. Domains were evaluated as having either low or high risk of bias or some concerns [47]. Assignment or intention to treat was the outcome of interest. Disagreement was resolved through discussion with the third author (WHH).
2.6. Statistical Analysis
All analyses were performed using the fixed-effects model with Review Manager version 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK), which includes MetaView for presenting graphs and figures. The mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each trial and are presented in a forest plot.
To assess heterogeneity, I2 statistics were calculated. An I2 greater than 50% represents substantial heterogeneity. The potential risk of small-study bias was visually examined by generating funnel plots [48]. Statistical significance was set at a p value of <0.05, except for publication bias, where a p value of <0.10 was considered. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing outlier studies—those with CIs that did not overlap with the CI of the pooled effect [49]. If I2 was >50%, subgroup analysis was conducted to determine potential factors contributing to the heterogeneity, such as the length of the probiotic intervention (less than 6 weeks vs. more than 6 weeks) and the time of postassessment blood sampling (immediately after exercise vs. delayed to at least the next day of exercise). No further subgroup analysis was performed if an outcome was examined in only two studies. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test. The funnel plot we constructed evaluates the pseudo 95% CI against the standard error of evaluations. Owing to heterogeneity, we used the fixed-effect model because when a conventional funnel plot is used to examine publication bias, the plot is assumed to be inaccurate when the number of studies included in the analysis is small [46].
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flowchart of the study screening and selection processes used in this research. Through a literature search, we retrieved relevant publications from PubMed (n = 92), Cochrane Library (n = 37), Embase (n = 41), and CEPS (n = 4). A total of 41 RCTs were retained after the exclusion of 133 duplicate studies. After the titles and abstracts had been screened, we excluded 26 studies and evaluated the eligibility of the remaining 15 studies. After the full-text assessment, we excluded six trials for several reasons (i.e., intervention time being <14 days, adoption of a crossover design, and examination of inflammation-related markers in only one study). A total of nine studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this systemic review and meta-analysis.
3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the nine studies that examined ten inflammation-related markers, namely TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IFN-γ, salivary IgA, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, and CRP. A brief description of their main features is provided in the following sections in compliance with the review strategy.
The nine trials were published between 2011 and 2021, and their sample sizes ranged from 13 to 97. A total of 335 participants were included (170 in the probiotic group and 165 in the placebo group). No difference was noted in age or body mass between the groups. The intervention period did vary somewhat among the studies, ranging from 28 to 90 days.
Five of the selected RCTs lasted 4 weeks (30 days) [21,23,24,25,26], one RCT lasted 8 weeks [27], and three RCTs lasted from 11 to 12 weeks (90 days) [8,20,22]. Sticks, capsules, sachets, or fermented milk were consumed once or twice per day during the supplementation period. Six RCTs used supplementation capsules containing B. lactis, and among them, capsules used in three RCTs also contained B. longum ES1. The probiotics in each study contained at least one type of Bifidobacterium species or Lactobacillus species. The control groups were mainly administered sensorially identical placebo capsules, sticks, or sachets containing excipients only without bacteria.
3.3. Inflammatory-Related Markers
Of the nine studies, seven reported the TNF-α level, five reported the IL-6 level, four reported the IL-8 level, five reported the IL-10 level, two reported the IFN-γ level, two reported the salivary IgA level, two reported the IL-1β level, two reported the IL-2 level, two reported the IL-4 level, and two reported the CRP level. One study [20] only indicated the differences in these markers after the intervention. Therefore, we determined differences in the levels of these markers by subtracting the preintervention values from the postintervention values.
The timing of the blood sampling in the baseline and postintervention assessments varied. For the baseline assessment, all the studies collected samples prior to the supplementation period with regular exercising. For the postintervention assessment, two studies collected blood samples at 8 a.m. on the 30th day, three studies collected samples after the supplementation period and ensured that participants did not perform strenuous exercise for at least 24 h before sample collection, one study collected samples 1 h after a race, and three studies collected samples immediately after a race.
3.4. RoB 2.0 Assessment
RoB 2.0 indicated overall high risk for one study, some concerns for three studies, and low risk for five studies for the outcome of inflammation-related markers. Overall, some concerns were concluded for the differences between the probiotic and placebo groups indicating that fat mass was higher in the probiotic group [26], body fat was significantly higher in the placebo group [20], and the white blood cell count was higher in women in the placebo group [8]. Low risk of bias was determined for the blood sampling outcome. We discovered high risk of attrition bias for one study [21] that excluded one participant due to an outlier and had a >20% loss in the follow-up and another study that excluded the data of four participants due to there being insufficient blood volume to enable analyses and had a 31% loss in the follow-up [27]. Because all nine RCTs reported the blinding of assessors, we considered them to have a low risk of detection bias. Studies reporting that the raw data of outcomes were unadjusted were considered to have low risk of reporting bias. Figure 2 presents the risks of bias of all the included studies in the five domains.
3.5. Overall Effects
The overall effect size for the TNF-α outcome was −0.30 (95% Cl: −0.42, −0.17, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity: chi-square = 31.5, df = 6, p < 0.0001, I² = 81%), indicating that the probiotic group exhibited a significant negative change in the TNF-α level compared with the control group (Figure 3). An outlier study was noted [27]. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding this study for all relevant outcomes.
The effect size for various modes and sites of stimulation is presented in Table 2.
3.6. Outcome of TNF-α
The effect size of the remaining six RCTs for the TNF-α outcome was −0.29 (95% Cl: −0.42, −0.16, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity: chi-square = 16.48, df = 5, p = 0.006, I² = 70%). The probiotic group exhibited a significant negative change in the TNF-α level compared with the control group in the fixed-effect model (Figure 4a). Because an I2 value of >50% represents substantial heterogeneity, we performed a subgroup analysis.
For a shorter intervention period, the probiotic group exhibited a significant negative change in the TNF-α level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.59 (95% Cl: −0.81, −0.37, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity: chi-square = 2.70, df = 2, p = 0.26, I² = 26%). For a longer intervention period, the probiotic group exhibited a significant change in the TNF-α level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.15 (95% Cl: −0.30, 0.01, p = 0.07; heterogeneity: chi-square = 3.62, df = 2, p = 0.16, I² = 45%; Figure 5a). In terms of the timing of postintervention blood sampling, the subgroup whose blood sample collection was delayed to at least the next day of exercise demonstrated a significant negative change in the TNF-α level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.26 (95% Cl: −0.40, −0.13, p = 0.0001; heterogeneity: chi-square = 11.74, df = 2, p = 0.003, I² = 83%). The subgroup whose blood samples were collected immediately after exercise exhibited a significant negative change in the TNF-α level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.57 (95% Cl: − 0.99, −0.16, p = 0.007; heterogeneity: chi-square = 2.78, df = 2, p = 0.25, I² = 28%; Figure 6a).
3.7. Outcome of IL-6
The effect size of five RCTs for the outcome of IL-6 was 0.19 (95% Cl: − 0.25, 0.63, p = 0.39; heterogeneity: chi-square = 4.00, df = 4, p = 0.41, I² = 0%). The probiotic group exhibited no significant change in the IL-6 level compared with the control group (Figure 4b). In the subgroup analysis, for a shorter intervention period, the probiotic group exhibited no significant change in the IL-6 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.11 (95% Cl: −4.56, 4.34, p = 0.96; heterogeneity: chi-square = 0.97, df = 2, p = 0.62, I² = 0%). For a longer intervention period, the probiotic group exhibited no significant change in the IL-6 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of 0.20 (95% Cl: −0.25, 0.64, p = 0.38; heterogeneity: chi-square = 3.01, df = 1, p = 0.08, I² = 67%; Figure 5b).
In the subgroup analyses of the timing of postintervention blood sampling, the subgroup whose blood sample collection was delayed to at least the next day of exercise demonstrated no significant change in the IL-6 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.77 (95% Cl: −1.91, 0.37, p = 0.18; heterogeneity: chi-square = 0.19, df = 1, p = 0.66, I² = 0%). The subgroup whose blood samples were collected immediately after exercise revealed no significant change in the IL-6 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of 0.36 (95% Cl: −0.11, 0.84, p = 0.14; heterogeneity: chi-square = 0.55, df = 2, p = 0.76, I² = 0%; Figure 6b).
3.8. Outcome of IL-8
The effect size of four RCTs for the outcome of IL-8 was −0.57 (95% Cl: −1.33, 0.19, p = 0.14; heterogeneity: chi-square = 12.68, df = 3, p = 0.01, I² = 76%). The probiotic group exhibited no significant change in the IL-8 level compared with the control group (Figure 4c).
In the subgroup analysis of the intervention period, for a shorter intervention period, the probiotic group exhibited no significant change in the IL-8 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −1.23 (95% Cl: −2.48, 0.03, p = 0.06; heterogeneity: chi-square = 11.05, df = 2, p = 0.004, I² = 82%). For a longer intervention period, the probiotic group demonstrated no significant change in the IL-8 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.20 (95% Cl: −1.15, 0.75, p = 0.68; Figure 5c).
In the subgroup analysis based on the timing of postintervention blood sampling, the subgroup whose blood sample collection was delayed to at least the next day of exercise exhibited no significant change compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.17 (95% Cl: −1.11, 0.77, p = 0.72; heterogeneity: chi-square = 0.16, df = 1, p = 0.69, I² = 0%). The subgroup whose blood samples were collected immediately after exercise exhibited a significant negative change in the IL-8 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −1.31 (95% Cl: −2.59, −0.04, p = 0.05; heterogeneity: chi-square = 10.56, df = 1, p = 0.001, I² = 91%; Figure 6c).
3.9. Outcome of IL-10
The effect size of five RCTs for the outcome of IL-10 was −0.13 (95% Cl: −0.19, −0.06; p = 0.0001, heterogeneity: chi-square = 5.01, df = 4, p = 0.29, I² = 20%). The probiotic group exhibited a significant negative change in the IL-10 level compared with the control group (Figure 4d).
In the subgroup analysis based on the intervention period, for a shorter intervention period, the probiotic group exhibited a significant negative change in the IL-10 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.13 (95% Cl: −0.19, −0.06, p = 0.0002; heterogeneity: chi-square = 4.67, df = 3, p = 0.20, I² = 36%). For a longer intervention period, the probiotic group exhibited no significant change in the IL-10 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.33 (95% Cl: −1.01, 0.35, p = 0.34; Figure 5d).
In the subgroup analysis based on the timing of postintervention blood sampling, the subgroup whose blood sample collection was delayed to at least the next day of exercise exhibited a significant negative change in the IL-10 level compared with the control group, with an effect size of −0.12 (95% Cl: −0.19, −0.05, p = 0.0005). The subgroup whose blood samples were collected immediately after exercise demonstrated a significant negative change in the IL-10 level compared with the control group in the fixed-effect model, with an effect size of −0.52 (95% Cl: −0.98, −0.07, p = 0.02; heterogeneity: chi-square = 2.08, df = 3, p = 0.56, I² = 0%; Figure 6d).
3.10. Outcome of IFN-γ
The effect size of two RCTs for the outcome of IFN-γ was 14.33 (95% Cl: 13.76, 14.89, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity: chi-square = 33.78, df = 1, p < 0.00001, I² = 97%). The probiotic group exhibited a significant positive change in the IFN-γ level compared with the control group (Figure 4e).
3.11. Outcome of Salivary IgA
The effect size of two RCTs for the outcome of salivary IgA was 3.57 (95% Cl: 0.66, 6.48, p = 0.02; heterogeneity: chi-square = 0.29, df = 1, p = 0.59, I² = 0%). The probiotic group demonstrated a significant positive change in the salivary IgA level compared with the control group (Figure 4f).
3.12. Outcome of IL-1β
The effect size of two RCTs for the outcome of IL-1β was −0.03 (95% Cl: −0.14, 0.08, p = 0.62; heterogeneity: chi-square = 5.67, df = 1, p = 0.02, I² = 82%). The probiotic group exhibited no significant positive change in the IL-1β level compared with the control group (Figure 4g).
3.13. Outcome of IL-2
The effect size of two RCTs for the outcome of IL-2 was −0.04 (95% Cl: −0.38, 0.31, p = 0.83; heterogeneity: chi-square = 0.99, df = 1, p = 0.32, I² = 0%). The probiotic group exhibited no significant positive change in the IL-2 level compared with the control group (Figure 4h).
3.14. Outcome of IL-4
The effect size of two RCTs for the outcome of IL-4 was −0.14 (95% Cl: −1.05, 0.77, p = 0.76; heterogeneity: chi-square = 0.25, df = 1, p = 0.62, I² = 0%). The probiotic group demonstrated no significant positive change in the IL-4 level compared with the control group (Figure 4i).
3.15. Outcome of CRP
The effect size of two RCTs for the outcome of CRP was −0.69 (95% Cl: −2.51, 1.13, p = 0.46; heterogeneity: chi-square = 2.70, df = 1, p = 0.10, I² = 63%). The probiotic group demonstrated no significant positive change in the CRP level compared with the control group (Figure 4j).
3.16. Publication Bias
According to the funnel plots (Figure 7), no heterogeneity was noted for the outcomes of IL-6 (Figure 7b), salivary IgA (Figure 7f), IL-2 (Figure 7h), and IL-4 (Figure 7i) because the included studies appeared to be distributed within two diagonal lines representing their pseudo 95% confidence limits. However, for the outcomes of IL-8 (Figure 7c), IFN-γ (Figure 7e), and IL-1β (Figure 7g), the studies appeared to be distributed beyond two diagonal lines representing heterogeneity [48].
4. Discussion
4.1. Overall Effect
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to investigate the effects of probiotic supplementation on the levels of inflammation-related markers, namely IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNF-α, IFN-γ, CRP, and salivary IgA, in athletes.
A study reported that the consumption of a symbiotic bacterium did not affect immune- and inflammation-related markers in athletes [25]. Pugh et al. indicated that the IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 levels were not significantly different before or after the race between the placebo and probiotic groups, although athletes self-reported lower incidence and severity of gastrointestinal tract symptoms [23]. Schreiber et al. demonstrated that the mean IL-6, TNF-α, and CRP levels were not affected by probiotics [20].
Conversely, some studies have reported the beneficial effects of probiotics. Smarkusz-Zarzecka et al. observed that the TNF-α level was lower in both sexes after probiotic supplementation [22]. Tavares-Silva et al. noted a significant decline in the IL-2 and IL-4 levels 24 h before exercise in the probiotic group compared with the placebo group [21]. West et al. indicated that probiotic supplementation attenuated acute exercise-induced changes in both anti-inflammatory and proinflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IFN-γ, and TNF-α) in male and female athletes [8].
Moderate activity may enhance immune function to higher than that noted at the sedentary level, whereas intense exercise may cause oxidative stress, muscle damage, inflammation, and immune alteration in elite athletes, leading to upper respiratory tract and gastrointestinal tract illness, especially diarrhea, during heavy training and competitions such as marathons [1,2,3,4,50,51]. In our meta-analysis, we examined the effects of probiotic supplementation on the levels of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines in athletes at baseline and after probiotics supplementation. The findings of this meta-analysis including nine studies indicate that not every cytokine participating in the inflammatory reaction had a significantly altered level after probiotic supplementation. No significant difference in the IL-6 level was observed in our meta-analysis. However, we noted significant differences in the IL-8, IL-10, and TNF-α levels.
4.2. Proinflammatory Markers: IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α, and CRP
IL-1β is a key mediator of the inflammatory response [52] and a proinflammatory cytokine that has been implicated in inflammatory conditions [53].
IL-2 plays an immunoregulatory role; it promotes the growth and development of peripheral immune cells in the initiation of the (defensive) immune response and maintains their viability as effector cells [54].
IL-4 is associated with type 2 inflammation and can downregulate IL-1β and TNF-α because of type 1 and type 2’s mutual suppression of each other [55,56].
IL-6 is a key member in the network of cytokines and plays a crucial role in acute inflammation [57]. Moreover, IL-6 exerts proinflammatory effects (e.g., in acute innate responses) and coordinates anti-inflammatory activities essential for the alleviation of inflammation [58].
IL-8 is a chemoattractant cytokine produced by various tissue and blood cells, and it attracts and activates neutrophils in inflammatory regions [59]. In addition to having chemokine properties, IL-8 acts as an angiogenic factor [60].
TNF-α is an inflammatory cytokine produced by macrophages and monocytes during acute inflammation and is responsible for various signaling events within cells, leading to necrosis or apoptosis [42,61].
CRP is a pentameric protein synthesized by the liver, and its level increases in response to inflammation. CRP is primarily induced by IL-6 during the acute phase of an inflammatory or infectious process [62].
Regarding proinflammatory markers, our quantitative analysis demonstrated that probiotic supplementation significantly reduced the TNF-α level but caused no changes in the IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, and CRP levels. This result is consistent with that of a previous meta-analysis investigating the effects of probiotic supplementation on normal healthy individuals and reporting a reduction in the TNF-α level but no differences in the IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 levels [63]. Although we did not observe significant changes in the levels of all proinflammatory markers in this study, their levels were lower after probiotic supplementation. In the subgroup analysis based on the timing of the postintervention blood sampling, the subgroup whose blood samples were collected immediately after exercise exhibited a significant decrease in the IL-8 level.
To perform a subgroup analysis on the basis of the period of probiotic intervention, we divided the studies into two groups: those in which athletes received probiotics for less than 6 weeks and for more than 6 weeks. The TNF-α level significantly changed in the shorter period group but not the longer period group, although the p value for the longer period group was 0.07, which is close to statistical significance. The current guidelines of the World Gastroenterology Organization indicate that it is generally not possible to state a general dose that is required for probiotics, and the dosage should be based on human studies showing a health benefit [64].
Probiotics may provide benefits by improving mucosal immunity, the inflammatory system, antioxidant capacity, stress reduction, microbiota composition, and the microenvironment in the gastrointestinal tract [65,66].
4.3. Anti-Inflammatory Markers: IL-10 and IFN-γ
IL-10 is the most important cytokine with anti-inflammatory properties [67]. In terms of the correlation between the IL-10 level and exercise, the exercise-induced increase in the plasma IL-6 level is followed by increased circulating levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-1ra and IL-10 [35,68].
IFN-γ coordinates a diverse array of cellular programs through transcriptional regulation of immunologically relevant genes [69]. IFN-r is considered an anti-inflammatory cytokine at low concentrations [70].
Our study revealed a reduction in the level of IL-10 but an increase in the level of IFN-γ after probiotic supplementation in athletes. A recent systematic review on this topic reported that exercise duration is the most crucial factor determining the magnitude of the exercise-induced increase in the plasma IL-10 level. However, no significant correlation was noted between the intensity of exercise and change in the IL-10 level [71]. The appearance of IL-10 after eccentric exercise may indicate that IL-10 release is secondary to tissue damage [72]. Thus, the first reason may be the original anti-inflammatory effect of antibiotics. Since probiotics may reduce the levels of proinflammatory markers, they do not further stimulate the production of IL-10.
4.4. Salivary IgA
IgA is the dominant immunoglobulin isotype on all mucosal surfaces, where it acts as the first line of defense against microbial invasion [73]. It is observed that oxidative stress is the leading cause of inflammation and may have a negative impact on immune function, so curing of oxidative stress will ultimately suppress the occurrence of inflammation [74]. IgA in sublingual and submandibular secretions is a preferential noninvasive proxy for intestinal immune induction [75]. Studies have reported varying effects of exercise on the IgA level. A meta-analysis conducted in 2021 indicated that physical exercise resulted in a change in the salivary IgA level in athletes; however, this study had risk of bias and very low certainty of the evidence [76].
Our results revealed a significant increase in the salivary IgA level after probiotic supplementation in athletes, indicating that probiotics exert beneficial effects on intestinal immune function. The increase in mucosal immunity due to administration of probiotics can protect against infection from pathogens that penetrate the mucosa [43,77].
Our results demonstrate that probiotics play a role in the anti-inflammatory response; this finding is consistent with those of two previous studies reporting that probiotics exert anti-inflammatory effects in intestinal chronic diseases [78] and can prevent acute upper respiratory tract infections [79]. The current guidelines of the American Gastroenterological Association indicate that in symptomatic children and adults with irritable bowel syndrome, the use of probiotics is recommended only in the context of a clinical trial [64]. The World Gastroenterology Organization concluded that probiotics can treat and prevent acute diarrhea but the mechanisms of action may be strain-specific [64].
4.5. Heterogeneity
The results of this study had relatively high heterogeneity; the influential factors were the duration of the intervention, assessment time point, country, probiotic type, and sport type. This study evaluated multiple outcomes on the basis of different intervention and participant types. To reduce the heterogeneity in outcomes between included studies, this study conducted subgroup analyses of the characteristics of supplementation and assessments and analyzed several potential moderators.
4.6. Strengths and Limitations
The strength of this meta-analysis is the extensive literature search covering RCTs published over 12 years. Another advantage is that we performed subgroup analyses in relation to several potential moderators. Moreover, we analyzed several types of inflammation-related markers.
This study has some limitations. The first is the quality of the included studies. Three of the nine studies had some concerns of bias and another study had high risk of bias; this may limit the confidence of the conclusion. In one study, fat mass was higher in the probiotic group [26]. In another study, body fat was significantly higher in the control group [20]. In one study, data were excluded due to there being insufficient blood volume to enable analyses and the loss during the follow-up was 31% [27]. In another study, one participant was excluded due to an outlier; this study had over 20% loss during follow-up [21]. Second, heterogeneity still existed regarding different intervention and participant types; the duration of the intervention, assessment time point, country, probiotic type, gender proportion, and sport type affected the evidence of our results. Differences between male and females included the type and intensity of physical activity. We did not review interactions related to the various species used in the supplements and if it was anticipated that there would or could be a synergistic impact on the markers. We mainly focused on probiotic supplementation and excluded studies that combined probiotics with other medications. Additionally, although we investigated the effects of probiotics on athletes, different types of sports were included, which may have resulted in different exercise intensities and thus altered the result. Finally, because the inflammation-related markers we assessed could only serve as a proxy of clinical effectiveness, the actual correlations between inflammatory markers and clinical symptoms, such as gastrointestinal syndromes and upper respiratory tract infection, were unclear.
5. Conclusions
This systematic review included nine studies published from 2011 to 2022. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that probiotics result in significant positive changes in the levels of IFN-γ and salivary IgA but negative changes in the levels of IL-10 and TNF-α, which demonstrated that probiotics play a role in the anti-inflammatory response. The levels of IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, and CRP did not exhibit significant changes. Our findings support that probiotics exert anti-inflammatory effects in intestinal chronic diseases and may be strain-specific to treat and prevent acute diarrhea. Future studies investigating the effects of probiotics can use larger samples, examine more types of exercise, and compare more types of probiotics.
Conceptualization, Y.-T.G. and Y.-C.P.; methodology, Y.-T.G. and Y.-C.P.; software, Y.-T.G. and Y.-C.P.; validation, J.-C.W.; formal analysis, Y.-T.G. and Y.-C.P.; investigation, Y.-T.G.; resources, J.-C.W. and W.-H.H.; data curation, Y.-T.G. and Y.-C.P.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-T.G., Y.-C.P. and H.-Y.Y.; writing—review and editing, W.-H.H., H.-Y.Y. and J.-C.W.; visualization, Y.-T.G.; supervision, W.-H.H.; project administration, W.-H.H.; funding acquisition, H.-Y.Y. and J.-C.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis flowchart of the search strategy.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Outcomes for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) −α, indicating that the probiotic group exhibited a significant negative change. An outlier study was noted.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Forest plots of the overall mean effect size for all studies examining the outcomes of (a) TNF−α, (b) interleukin (IL)−6, (c) IL−8, (d) IL−10, (e) interferon (IFN)−γ, (f) salivary immunoglobulin A (IgA), (g) IL−1β, (h) IL−2, (i) IL−4, and (j) C−reactive protein (CRP).
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Forest plots of the mean effect size for the subgroups with a shorter and longer intervention period for (a) TNF−α, (b) IL−6, (c) IL−8, and (d) IL−10.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Forest plots of the mean effect size for the subgroups with sample collection delayed to at least the next day of exercise and immediately performed after exercise for (a) TNF−α, (b) IL−6, (c) IL−8, and (d) IL−10.
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Funnel plots of included studies: (a) TNF−α, (b) IL−6, (c) IL−8, (d) IL−10, (e) IFN−γ, (f) salivary IgA, (g) IL−1β, (h) IL−2, (i) IL−4, and (j) CRP.
Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
| Source | Publication Date | Country | Sport Type | Species | Assessed Inflammatory Markers | Probiotic Type | Control (Placebo) Type | Male Female Total | Probiotic Control | Probiotic Control | Probiotics | Baseline Assessment Time | Dose (16 CFU) | Frequency | Intervention Time | Post-Intervention Assessment Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West, 2011 | 2011 April | Australia | Cycling | L. fermentum | IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IFN-γ, TNF-α | Capsule | Capsule | M: 62 |
P: 47 |
P: 35.2 ± 10.3 |
P: 77.9 ± 8.4 |
Prior to supplement period | 1 billion CFU | 1 capsule QD | 11 weeks | Immediately after a race |
| Tavares-Silva, 2021 | 2021 April | Brazil | Running | B. bifidum, B. lactis, L. acidophilus, L. lactis, L. paracasei | IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, TNF-α, salivary IgA | Capsule | Capsule | M: 14 |
P: 7 |
P: 41.57 ± 3.20 |
P: 71.24 ± 3.55 |
1st day | 5 billion CFU | 2 g 20 QN | 30 days | Immediately after a race |
| Smarkusz-Zarzecka, 2020 | 2020 December | Poland | Running | B. bifidum, |
CRP, TNF-α | Capsule | Capsule | M: 46 |
P: 34 |
P: 39.35 ± 8.23 |
P: 72.46 ± 4.62 |
Prior to supplement period | 2.5 billion CFU | 2 capsules BID | 90 days | After the supplement period; physical activity was avoided for at least 24 h before the test |
| Schreiber, 2021 | 2021 May | Israel | Cycling | B. subtilis, |
IL-6, 10 CRP, TNF-α | Capsule | Capsule | M: 27 |
P: 11 |
P: 25.9 ± 4.6 |
P: 71.3 ± 8.9 |
1st day | 15 billion CFU | 1 capsule QD | 90 days | 90th day; strenuous activity was avoided for at least 24 h |
| Quero-Calero, 2022 | 2022 March | Spain | Soccer | B. lactis, |
IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α | Powder stick | Powder stick | M: 13 |
P: 7 |
P: 20.6 ± 1.39 |
P: 70.57 ± 6.75 |
1st day | 1 billion CFU | 1 #QD | 30 days | 30th day at 8 a.m. |
| Quero, 2021 | 2021 April | Spain | Soccer | B. lactis, |
IL-1β, IL-10, salivary IgA | Powder stick | Powder stick | M: 13 |
P: 7 |
P: 20.66 ± 1.39 |
P: 70.57 ± 6.75 |
1st day | 1 billion CFU | 1 #QD | 30 days | 30th day at 8 a.m. |
| Pugh, 2019 | 2019 July | UK | Running | B. bifidum, |
IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 | Capsule | Capsule | M: 20 |
P: 11 |
P: 34.8 ± 6.9 |
P: 76.5 ± 9.4 |
4 weeks before the marathon and prior to the supplement period | 25 billion CFU | 1# 19 QDAMPC, 1# on the morning of the race, 1# 2 h before the start | 28 days | Immediately after a race |
| Gleeson, 2011 | 2011 February | UK | Endurance-based activities | L. casei Shirota | IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IFN-γ, TNF-α, 9 salivary IgA | Fermented drink | Identical in color and taste | M: 54 |
P: 32 |
P: 32 ± 14 |
P: 71.2 ± 9.9 |
1st day | 6.5 billion CFU | 1# 18 BID | 8 weeks | After 8 weeks and 16 weeks; strenuous activity was avoided for at least 24 h |
| Batatinha, 2020 | 2020 November | Brazil | Runners | B. animalis subsp. |
1 IL-1β, 2 IL-2, 3 IL-4, 4 IL-6, 5 IL-8, 6 IL-10, 7 IFN-γ, 8 TNF-α | Sachets | Sachets | 11 M: 27 |
14 P: 14 |
P: 35.96 ± 5.81 |
P: 79.30 ± 10.99 |
1st day | 20 billion CFU | 1# 17 QD | 30 days | 1 h after a race |
1 IL-1β, interleukin-1 beta; 2 IL-2, interleukin-2; 3 IL-4, interleukin-4; 4 IL-6, interleukin-6; 5 IL-8, interleukin-8; 6 IL-10, interleukin-10; 7 IFN-γ, interferon-gamma; 8 TNF-a, tumor necrosis factor-alpha; 9 salivary IgA, salivary immunoglobulin A; 10 CRP, C-reactive protein; 11 M, male; 12 F, female; 13 T, total; 14 P, probiotics; 15 C, control; 16 CFU, colony-forming unit; 17 QD, once a day; 18 BID, twice a day; 19 QDAMPC, once a day after breakfast; 20 QN, once in the night.
Overall effect of inflammation-related markers.
| Period of Probiotic Intervention | Timing of Postassessment Blood Sampling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inflammation-Related Marker | Overall Effect | Shorter Period | Longer Period | Delayed to at Least the Next Day of Exercise | Immediate Assessment after Exercise |
| TNF-α | −0.29 | −0.59 | −0.15 | −0.26 | −0.57 |
| (−0.42, −0.16) | (−0.81, −0.37) | (−0.30, 0.01) | (−0.40, −0.13) | (−0.99, −0.16) | |
| IL-6 | 0.19 | −0.11 | 0.20 | −0.77 | 0.36 |
| (−0.25, 0.63) | (−4.56, 4.34) | (−0.25, 0.64) | (−1.91, 0.37) | (−0.11, 0.84) | |
| IL-8 | −0.57 | −1.23 | −0.20 | −0.17 | −1.31 |
| (−1.33, 0.19) | (−2.48, 0.03) | (−1.15, 0.75) | (−1.11, 0.77) | (−2.59, −0.04) | |
| IL-10 | −0.1 | −0.13 | −0.33 | −0.12 | −0.52 |
| (−0.19, −0.06) | (−0.19, −0.06) | (−1.01, 0.35) | (−0.19, −0.05) | (−0.98, −0.07) | |
| IFN-γ | 14.33 | ||||
| (13.76, 14.89) | |||||
| IgA | 3.57 | ||||
| (0.66, 6.48) | |||||
| IL-β | −0.03 | ||||
| (−0.14, 0.08) | |||||
| IL-2 | −0.04 | ||||
| (−0.38, 0.31) | |||||
| IL-4 | −0.14 | ||||
| (−1.05, 0.77) | |||||
| CRP | −0.69 | ||||
| (−2.51, 1.13) | |||||
References
1. Costa, R.J.S.; Snipe, R.M.J.; Kitic, C.M.; Gibson, P.R. Systematic review: Exercise-induced gastrointestinal syndrome-implications for health and intestinal disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.; 2017; 46, pp. 246-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14157] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28589631]
2. Gleeson, M. Mucosal immunity and respiratory illness in elite athletes. Int. J. Sports Med.; 2000; 21, (Suppl. 1), pp. 33-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-1450] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10893023]
3. ter Steege, R.W.; Kolkman, J.J. Review article: The pathophysiology and management of gastrointestinal symptoms during physical exercise, and the role of splanchnic blood flow. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.; 2012; 35, pp. 516-528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04980.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229513]
4. Lang, J.A.; Gisolfi, C.V.; Lambert, G.P. Effect of exercise intensity on active and passive glucose absorption. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab.; 2006; 16, pp. 485-493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.16.5.485]
5. Hong, S.; Mills, P.J. Effects of an exercise challenge on mobilization and surface marker expression of monocyte subsets in individuals with normal vs. elevated blood pressure. Brain Behav. Immun.; 2008; 22, pp. 590-599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2007.12.003]
6. Simpson, R.J.; McFarlin, B.K.; McSporran, C.; Spielmann, G.; Hartaigh, B.O.; Guy, K. Toll-like receptor expression on classic and pro-inflammatory blood monocytes after acute exercise in humans. Brain Behav. Immun.; 2009; 23, pp. 232-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2008.09.013]
7. Shing, C.M.; Peake, J.M.; Lim, C.L.; Briskey, D.; Walsh, N.P.; Fortes, M.B.; Ahuja, K.D.; Vitetta, L. Effects of probiotics supplementation on gastrointestinal permeability, inflammation and exercise performance in the heat. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.; 2014; 114, pp. 93-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-013-2748-y]
8. West, N.P.; Pyne, D.B.; Cripps, A.W.; Hopkins, W.G.; Eskesen, D.C.; Jairath, A.; Christophersen, C.T.; Conlon, M.A.; Fricker, P.A. Lactobacillus fermentum (PCC(R)) supplementation and gastrointestinal and respiratory-tract illness symptoms: A randomised control trial in athletes. Nutr. J.; 2011; 10, 30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-10-30]
9. Nieman, D.C.; Johanssen, L.M.; Lee, J.W.; Arabatzis, K. Infectious episodes in runners before and after the Los Angeles Marathon. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit.; 1990; 30, pp. 316-328.
10. Peters, E.M.; Goetzsche, J.M.; Grobbelaar, B.G.; Noakes, T.D. Vitamin C supplementation reduces the incidence of postrace symptoms of upper-respiratory-tract infection in ultramarathon runners. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 1993; 57, pp. 170-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/57.2.170]
11. Foster, C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.; 1998; 30, pp. 1164-1168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199807000-00023]
12. Mackinnon, L.T. Chronic exercise training effects on immune function. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.; 2000; 32, pp. S369-S376. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200007001-00001]
13. Yasmin, A.; Butt, M.S.; Afzaal, M.; van Baak, M.; Nadeem, M.T.; Shahid, M.Z. Prebiotics, gut microbiota and metabolic risks: Unveiling the relationship. J. Funct. Foods; 2015; 17, pp. 189-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2015.05.004]
14. de Vrese, M.; Schrezenmeir, J. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol.; 2008; 111, pp. 1-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/10_2008_097]
15. Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S. et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.; 2014; 11, pp. 506-514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66]
16. Weichselbaum, E. Potential benefits of probiotics--main findings of an in-depth review. Br. J. Community Nurs.; 2010; 15, pp. 110-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2010.15.3.46897]
17. Gibson, G.R.; Roberfroid, M.B. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: Introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutr.; 1995; 125, pp. 1401-1412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jn/125.6.1401]
18. Ouwehand, A.C.; Kirjavainen, P.V.; Grönlund, M.M.; Isolauri, E.; Salminen, S.J. Adhesion of probiotic micro-organisms to intestinal mucus. Int. Dairy J.; 1999; 9, pp. 623-630. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(99)00132-6]
19. Bernet, M.F.; Brassart, D.; Neeser, J.R.; Servin, A.L. Adhesion of human bifidobacterial strains to cultured human intestinal epithelial cells and inhibition of enteropathogen-cell interactions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 1993; 59, pp. 4121-4128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/aem.59.12.4121-4128.1993]
20. Schreiber, C.; Tamir, S.; Golan, R.; Weinstein, A.; Weinstein, Y. The effect of probiotic supplementation on performance, inflammatory markers and gastro-intestinal symptoms in elite road cyclists. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr.; 2021; 18, 36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12970-021-00432-6]
21. Tavares-Silva, E.; Caris, A.V.; Santos, S.A.; Ravacci, G.R.; Thomatieli-Santos, R.V. Effect of Multi-Strain Probiotic Supplementation on URTI Symptoms and Cytokine Production by Monocytes after a Marathon Race: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Study. Nutrients; 2021; 13, 1478. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13051478]
22. Smarkusz-Zarzecka, J.; Ostrowska, L.; Leszczynska, J.; Orywal, K.; Cwalina, U.; Pogodzinski, D. Analysis of the Impact of a Multi-Strain Probiotic on Body Composition and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Long-Distance Runners. Nutrients; 2020; 12, 3758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu12123758]
23. Pugh, J.N.; Sparks, A.S.; Doran, D.A.; Fleming, S.C.; Langan-Evans, C.; Kirk, B.; Fearn, R.; Morton, J.P.; Close, G.L. Four weeks of probiotic supplementation reduces GI symptoms during a marathon race. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.; 2019; 119, pp. 1491-1501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-019-04136-3]
24. Quero, C.D.; Manonelles, P.; Fernandez, M.; Abellan-Aynes, O.; Lopez-Plaza, D.; Andreu-Caravaca, L.; Hinchado, M.D.; Galvez, I.; Ortega, E. Differential Health Effects on Inflammatory, Immunological and Stress Parameters in Professional Soccer Players and Sedentary Individuals after Consuming a Synbiotic. A Triple-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study. Nutrients; 2021; 13, 1321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13041321]
25. Quero-Calero, C.D.; Abellan-Aynes, O.; Manonelles, P.; Ortega, E. The Consumption of a Synbiotic Does Not Affect the Immune, Inflammatory, and Sympathovagal Parameters in Athletes and Sedentary Individuals: A Triple-Blinded, Randomized, Place-bo-Controlled Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 3421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063421]
26. Batatinha, H.; Tavares-Silva, E.; Leite, G.S.F.; Resende, A.S.; Albuquerque, J.A.T.; Arslanian, C.; Fock, R.A.; Lancha, A.H., Jr.; Lira, F.S.; Kruger, K. et al. Probiotic supplementation in marathonists and its impact on lymphocyte population and function after a marathon: A randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 18777. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75464-0]
27. Gleeson, M.; Bishop, N.C.; Oliveira, M.; Tauler, P. Daily probiotic’s (Lactobacillus casei Shirota) reduction of infection incidence in athletes. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab.; 2011; 21, pp. 55-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.21.1.55]
28. Petersen, A.M.; Pedersen, B.K. The anti-inflammatory effect of exercise. J. Appl. Physiol.; 2005; 98, pp. 1154-1162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00164.2004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15772055]
29. Akira, S.; Kishimoto, T. IL-6 and NF-IL6 in acute-phase response and viral infection. Immunol. Rev.; 1992; 127, pp. 25-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-065X.1992.tb01407.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1380488]
30. Akira, S.; Taga, T.; Kishimoto, T. Interleukin-6 in biology and medicine. Adv. Immunol.; 1993; 54, pp. 1-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60532-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8379461]
31. McCarthy, J.; O’Mahony, L.; O’Callaghan, L.; Sheil, B.; Vaughan, E.E.; Fitzsimons, N.; Fitzgibbon, J.; O’Sullivan, G.C.; Kiely, B.; Collins, J.K. et al. Double blind, placebo controlled trial of two probiotic strains in interleukin 10 knockout mice and mechanistic link with cytokine balance. Gut; 2003; 52, pp. 975-980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gut.52.7.975]
32. Li, A.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Qamar, H.; Mehmood, K.; Zhang, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, H.; Li, J. Probiotics isolated from yaks improves the growth performance, antioxidant activity, and cytokines related to immunity and inflammation in mice. Microb. Cell Fact.; 2019; 18, 112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12934-019-1161-6]
33. Hajifaraji, M.; Jahanjou, F.; Abbasalizadeh, F.; Aghamohammadzadeh, N.; Abbasi, M.M.; Dolatkhah, N. Effect of probiotic supplements in women with gestational diabetes mellitus on inflammation and oxidative stress biomarkers: A randomized clinical trial. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2018; 27, pp. 581-591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6133/apjcn.082017.03]
34. Cytokines in the balance. Nat. Immunol.; 2019; 20, 1557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0557-0]
35. Ostrowski, K.; Rohde, T.; Asp, S.; Schjerling, P.; Pedersen, B.K. Pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine balance in strenuous exercise in humans. J. Physiol.; 1999; 515, pp. 287-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.1999.287ad.x]
36. Fajgenbaum, D.C.; June, C.H. Cytokine Storm. N. Engl. J. Med.; 2020; 383, pp. 2255-2273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2026131]
37. Bernecker, C.; Scherr, J.; Schinner, S.; Braun, S.; Scherbaum, W.A.; Halle, M. Evidence for an exercise induced increase of TNF-alpha and IL-6 in marathon runners. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports; 2013; 23, pp. 207-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01372.x]
38. Cerqueira, E.; Marinho, D.A.; Neiva, H.P.; Lourenco, O. Inflammatory Effects of High and Moderate Intensity Exercise-A Systematic Review. Front. Physiol.; 2019; 10, 1550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01550]
39. Malek, T.R. The main function of IL-2 is to promote the development of T regulatory cells. J. Leukoc. Biol.; 2003; 74, pp. 961-965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1189/jlb.0603272]
40. Bao, K.; Reinhardt, R.L. The differential expression of IL-4 and IL-13 and its impact on type-2 immunity. Cytokine; 2015; 75, pp. 25-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cyto.2015.05.008]
41. Alves, M.D.J.; Silva, D.D.S.; Pereira, E.V.M.; Pereira, D.D.; de Sousa Fernandes, M.S.; Santos, D.F.C.; Oliveira, D.P.M.; Vieira-Souza, L.M.; Aidar, F.J.; de Souza, R.F. Changes in Cytokines Concentration Following Long-Distance Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Physiol.; 2022; 13, 838069. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.838069]
42. Smyth, M.J.; Johnstone, R.W. Role of TNF in lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity. Microsc. Res. Tech.; 2000; 50, pp. 196-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0029(20000801)50:3<196::AID-JEMT3>3.0.CO;2-9]
43. Neville, V.; Gleeson, M.; Folland, J.P. Salivary IgA as a risk factor for upper respiratory infections in elite professional athletes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.; 2008; 40, pp. 1228-1236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31816be9c3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18580401]
44. Harbige, L.S.; Pinto, E.; Allgrove, J.; Thomas, L.V. Immune Response of Healthy Adults to the Ingested Probiotic Lactobacillus casei Shirota. Scand. J. Immunol.; 2016; 84, pp. 353-364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sji.12495]
45. Gill, S.K.; Allerton, D.M.; Ansley-Robson, P.; Hemmings, K.; Cox, M.; Costa, R.J. Does Short-Term High Dose Probiotic Supplementation Containing Lactobacillus casei Attenuate Exertional-Heat Stress Induced Endotoxaemia and Cytokinaemia?. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab.; 2016; 26, pp. 268-275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2015-0186]
46. Rohatgi, A. Webplotdigitizer, Version 4.4. 2020; Available online: https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer (accessed on 3 November 2020).
47. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savovic, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M. et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ; 2019; 366, l4898. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898]
48. Song, F.; Khan, K.S.; Dinnes, J.; Sutton, A.J. Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Int. J. Epidemiol.; 2002; 31, pp. 88-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.88]
49. Cuijpers, P. 3.16—Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analytic Methods in Clinical Psychology. Comprehensive Clinical Psychology; 2nd ed. Asmundson, G.J.G. Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2022; pp. 224-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00157-6]
50. Huang, W.C.; Wei, C.C.; Huang, C.C.; Chen, W.L.; Huang, H.Y. The Beneficial Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 on High-Intensity, Exercise-Induced Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, and Performance in Triathletes. Nutrients; 2019; 11, 353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11020353]
51. Moreira, A.; Delgado, L.; Moreira, P.; Haahtela, T. Does exercise increase the risk of upper respiratory tract infections?. Br. Med. Bull.; 2009; 90, pp. 111-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldp010]
52. Lopez-Castejon, G.; Brough, D. Understanding the mechanism of IL-1beta secretion. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev.; 2011; 22, pp. 189-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cytogfr.2011.10.001]
53. Ren, K.; Torres, R. Role of interleukin-1beta during pain and inflammation. Brain Res. Rev.; 2009; 60, pp. 57-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.12.020]
54. Dembic, Z. Chapter 6—Cytokines of the Immune System: Interleukins. The Cytokines of the Immune System; Dembic, Z. Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 143-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-419998-9.00006-7]
55. Suzuki, K.; Yamada, M.; Kurakake, S.; Okamura, N.; Yamaya, K.; Liu, Q.; Kudoh, S.; Kowatari, K.; Nakaji, S.; Sugawara, K. Circulating cytokines and hormones with immunosuppressive but neutrophil-priming potentials rise after endurance exercise in humans. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.; 2000; 81, pp. 281-287. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004210050044]
56. Ma, Q. Polarization of Immune Cells in the Pathologic Response to Inhaled Particulates. Front. Immunol.; 2020; 11, 1060. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01060]
57. Zhang, C.; Wu, Z.; Li, J.W.; Zhao, H.; Wang, G.Q. Cytokine release syndrome in severe COVID-19: Interleukin-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab may be the key to reduce mortality. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents; 2020; 55, 105954. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105954]
58. Hunter, C.A.; Jones, S.A. IL-6 as a keystone cytokine in health and disease. Nat. Immunol.; 2015; 16, pp. 448-457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ni.3153]
59. Bickel, M. The role of interleukin-8 in inflammation and mechanisms of regulation. J. Periodontol.; 1993; 64, pp. 456-460.
60. Heidemann, J.; Ogawa, H.; Dwinell, M.B.; Rafiee, P.; Maaser, C.; Gockel, H.R.; Otterson, M.F.; Ota, D.M.; Lugering, N.; Domschke, W. et al. Angiogenic effects of interleukin 8 (CXCL8) in human intestinal microvascular endothelial cells are mediated by CXCR2. J. Biol. Chem.; 2003; 278, pp. 8508-8515. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M208231200]
61. Idriss, H.T.; Naismith, J.H. TNF alpha and the TNF receptor superfamily: Structure-function relationship(s). Microsc. Res. Tech.; 2000; 50, pp. 184-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0029(20000801)50:3<184::AID-JEMT2>3.0.CO;2-H]
62. Nehring, S.M.; Goyal, A.; Patel, B.C. C Reactive Protein; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022.
63. Kazemi, A.; Soltani, S.; Ghorabi, S.; Keshtkar, A.; Daneshzad, E.; Nasri, F.; Mazloomi, S.M. Effect of probiotic and synbiotic supplementation on inflammatory markers in health and disease status: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin. Nutr.; 2020; 39, pp. 789-819. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.04.004]
64. Su, G.L.; Ko, C.W.; Bercik, P.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Sultan, S.; Weizman, A.V.; Morgan, R.L. AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Role of Probiotics in the Management of Gastrointestinal Disorders. Gastroenterology; 2020; 159, pp. 697-705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.059]
65. Sivamaruthi, B.S.; Kesika, P.; Chaiyasut, C. Effect of Probiotics Supplementations on Health Status of Athletes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 4469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224469]
66. Leite, G.S.F.; Resende Master Student, A.S.; West, N.P.; Lancha, A.H., Jr. Probiotics and sports: A new magic bullet?. Nutrition; 2019; 60, pp. 152-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2018.09.023]
67. Sabat, R.; Grutz, G.; Warszawska, K.; Kirsch, S.; Witte, E.; Wolk, K.; Geginat, J. Biology of interleukin-10. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev.; 2010; 21, pp. 331-344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cytogfr.2010.09.002]
68. Ostrowski, K.; Schjerling, P.; Pedersen, B.K. Physical activity and plasma interleukin-6 in humans--effect of intensity of exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.; 2000; 83, pp. 512-515. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004210000312]
69. Schroder, K.; Hertzog, P.J.; Ravasi, T.; Hume, D.A. Interferon-gamma: An overview of signals, mechanisms and functions. J. Leukoc. Biol.; 2004; 75, pp. 163-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1189/jlb.0603252]
70. Flaishon, L.; Topilski, I.; Shoseyov, D.; Hershkoviz, R.; Fireman, E.; Levo, Y.; Marmor, S.; Shachar, I. Cutting edge: Anti-inflammatory properties of low levels of IFN-gamma. J. Immunol.; 2002; 168, pp. 3707-3711. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.168.8.3707]
71. Cabral-Santos, C.; de Lima Junior, E.A.; Fernandes, I.; Pinto, R.Z.; Rosa-Neto, J.C.; Bishop, N.C.; Lira, F.S. Interleukin-10 responses from acute exercise in healthy subjects: A systematic review. J. Cell. Physiol.; 2019; 234, pp. 9956-9965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcp.27920]
72. Moldoveanu, A.I.; Shephard, R.J.; Shek, P.N. The cytokine response to physical activity and training. Sports Med.; 2001; 31, pp. 115-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200131020-00004]
73. Miletic, I.D.; Schiffman, S.S.; Miletic, V.D.; Sattely-Miller, E.A. Salivary IgA secretion rate in young and elderly persons. Physiol. Behav.; 1996; 60, pp. 243-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(95)02161-2]
74. Baralic, I.; Andjelkovic, M.; Djordjevic, B.; Dikic, N.; Radivojevic, N.; Suzin-Zivkovic, V.; Radojevic-Skodric, S.; Pejic, S. Effect of Astaxanthin Supplementation on Salivary IgA, Oxidative Stress, and Inflammation in Young Soccer Players. Evid Based Complement. Altern. Med.; 2015; 2015, 783761. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/783761]
75. Aase, A.; Sommerfelt, H.; Petersen, L.B.; Bolstad, M.; Cox, R.J.; Langeland, N.; Guttormsen, A.B.; Steinsland, H.; Skrede, S.; Brandtzaeg, P. Salivary IgA from the sublingual compartment as a novel noninvasive proxy for intestinal immune induction. Mucosal Immunol.; 2016; 9, pp. 884-893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mi.2015.107] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26509875]
76. Castilho, T.; da Silva Guimarães, L.; Póvoa, H.C.C.; Antunes, L.S.; Antunes, L.A.A. Influence of physical exercises on salivary immunoglobulin A (sIgA) concentration in athletes: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sport Sci. Health; 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11332-021-00870-4]
77. Clancy, R.L.; Gleeson, M.; Cox, A.; Callister, R.; Dorrington, M.; D′Este, C.; Pang, G.; Pyne, D.; Fricker, P.; Henriksson, A. Reversal in fatigued athletes of a defect in interferon gamma secretion after administration of Lactobacillus acidophilus. Br. J. Sports Med.; 2006; 40, pp. 351-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2005.024364]
78. Plaza-Diaz, J.; Ruiz-Ojeda, F.J.; Vilchez-Padial, L.M.; Gil, A. Evidence of the Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Probiotics and Synbiotics in Intestinal Chronic Diseases. Nutrients; 2017; 9, 555. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu9060555] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28555037]
79. Hao, Q.; Dong, B.R.; Wu, T. Probiotics for preventing acute upper respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.; 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006895.pub3]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
1 School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan;
2 School of Gerontology and Long-Term Care, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan;
3 Department of Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei 110, Taiwan; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan; TMU Research Center of Urology and Kidney, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei 110, Taiwan; Department of Health Promotion and Health Education, College of Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106, Taiwan
4 Department of Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei 110, Taiwan; School of Gerontology and Long-Term Care, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan;