
==== Front
Gut Pathog
Gut Pathog
Gut Pathogens
1757-4749
BioMed Central London

39245752
634
10.1186/s13099-024-00634-8
Research
Strain-specific effects of probiotics on depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis
Rahmannia Maryam 1
Poudineh Mohadeseh 1
Mirzaei Roya 1
Aalipour Mohammad Amin 1
Shahidi Bonjar Amir Hashem 2
Goudarzi Mehdi 1
Kheradmand Ali 3
Aslani Hamid Reza 4
Sadeghian Majid 3
Nasiri Mohammad Javad Mj.nasiri@hotmail.com

1
Sechi Leonardo Antonio sechila@uniss.it

5
1 https://ror.org/034m2b326 grid.411600.2 Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 https://ror.org/034m2b326 grid.411600.2 Scientist of Dental Materials and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 https://ror.org/034m2b326 grid.411600.2 Department of Psychiatry, Taleghani Hospital Clinical Research Development Unit, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 https://ror.org/03w04rv71 grid.411746.1 0000 0004 4911 7066 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 https://ror.org/01bnjbv91 grid.11450.31 0000 0001 2097 9138 Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
8 9 2024
8 9 2024
2024
16 464 6 2024
17 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Introduction

Depression and anxiety are pervasive mental health disorders with substantial global burdens. Probiotics, live microorganisms known for their health benefits, have emerged as a potential therapeutic intervention for these conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the strain-specific effects of probiotics on relieving depressive and anxiety symptoms while elucidating underlying mechanisms.

Methods

EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PubMed/Medline were systematically queried to identify studies released until May 15, 2024. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that employed standardized assessment tools for depression and anxiety namely Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were included.

Results

12 RCTs involving 707 participants were included. Seven RCTs utilizing the BDI questionnaire demonstrated a significant decrease in depressive symptoms favoring probiotics containing strains such as Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus salivarius, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium breve, and Bifidobacterium longum (MD: -2.69, CI95%: -4.22/-1.16, p value: 0.00). Conversely, RCTs using HAMD showed a non-significant reduction in depressive symptoms (MD: -1.40, CI95%: -3.29/0.48, p value: 0.14). RCTs employing DASS and MADRS scales also showed no significant differences.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis offers valuable insights into the strain-specific effects of probiotics containing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species on depressive and anxiety symptoms. While our findings suggest a significant reduction in depressive symptoms based on the BDI scale favoring probiotics, the lack of significant effects observed on the HAMD, DASS, and MADRS scales underscores the complexity inherent in these conditions. It is imperative to acknowledge the mixed results across different measurement scales, indicating the need for cautious interpretation. Therefore, we advocate for a nuanced understanding of probiotics’ impacts on various dimensions of mood, emphasizing the necessity for further research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13099-024-00634-8.

Keywords

Mental Health
Probiotic
Mood
Depression
Anxiety systematic review
Meta-analysis
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009873 Regione Autonoma della Sardegna LR 22 to Sechi PRIN 20222022BP837R to sechi issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Depression and anxiety, two prevailing and often co-occurring mental health disorders, constitute a substantial global health challenge [1–3]. The profound impact of these conditions transcends individual suffering, encompassing economic burdens, compromised quality of life, and an extensive societal footprint. While conventional therapeutic modalities have provided significant relief to many, a growing body of scientific inquiry has ventured into the intriguing domain of the gut-brain axis, where the microbiota, specifically probiotics, may offer innovative solutions to these complex conditions [4–7]. Probiotics, live microorganisms with established health benefits, have ignited interest in the realm of mental health research [8–11]. Their potential influence on the gut-brain axis represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of the biological underpinnings of depression and anxiety [10, 12]. Current hypotheses propose that probiotics influence this axis by modulating inflammation, producing neurotransmitters, and improving gut barrier function. While some studies suggest positive effects on mood and anxiety, the field is still in its early stages [10, 12]. Despite existing studies, recent advancements in research, ongoing clinical trials, and evolving methodologies may not be adequately reflected in earlier reviews. Current reviews often adopt broad inclusion criteria, encompassing a wide range of probiotic interventions without delineating the specific effects of individual strains. Moreover, while previous reviews may touch upon the potential mechanisms underlying probiotics’ effects on mood and anxiety, they often lack in-depth exploration due to scope limitations. Therefore, the aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis is to elucidate the strain-specific effects of probiotics on mood and anxiety. This approach recognizes the importance of precision medicine in optimizing treatment outcomes. Additionally, the review seeks to delve deeper into the mechanisms underlying these effects, offering valuable insights into the biological underpinnings of probiotic-mediated effects on mental health.

Methods

The current investigation adhered to and reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (ID: CRD42023464805) [13].

Search strategy

Medical databases, namely PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, were systematically explored for studies released until May 15, 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English were included in the selection process. The search utilized specific combinations of MeSH terms and keywords, including ‘Probiotics,’ ‘Depression,’ and ‘Anxiety’ (Supplementary file). Additionally, backward and forward citation searches were conducted within the selected studies to identify additional relevant publications.

Study selection

All collected records were consolidated, and duplicates were eliminated using EndNote X8 (Thomson Reuters, Toronto, ON, Canada). Each record underwent independent screening by two reviewers (MG) or M.R) to assess eligibility criteria. Unrelated studies were excluded based on title and abstract, followed by a full-text examination. In instances of discrepancies between the two reviewers, the lead investigator evaluated the record (MN). Eligible studies met the following criteria based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO):

Study design

RCTs that employed standardized assessment tools for depression and anxiety (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)).

Patients

The eligible studies were required to involve individuals with a clinical diagnosis or symptoms of depression and/or anxiety, as defined by the authors of the respective studies.

Interventions

Probiotics were used either alone, as adjunctive treatments to existing antidepressants, or in combination with minerals or vitamins.

Comparisons

Placebo.

Outcomes

Relief of depressive and anxiety symptoms diagnosed with BDI, HAMD, DASS, and MADRS.

The BDI is a self-report questionnaire widely recognized for its sensitivity in capturing cognitive and affective symptoms of depression. In contrast, the HAMD is clinician-administered and emphasizes observable symptoms of depression. The DASS and MADRS provide broader assessments encompassing multiple dimensions of mood disorders, including anxiety-related symptoms.

Excluded from consideration were reviews, conference abstracts, expert opinions, editorials, study protocols, and case reports.

Data extraction

Two reviewers (M.N or MR) collaboratively developed a data extraction form and proceeded to extract data from all included studies. Each record’s data were independently extracted by the two reviewers, and any discrepancies were resolved through consensus. The extracted information encompassed the following details: first author names, study design, mean age, number of participants, interventions, follow-up duration, control group details, and outcomes.

Quality assessment

Two reviewers (AHSB, AK) conducted the assessment of each study’s quality, and a third reviewer (MD) was engaged to resolve any inconsistencies. The evaluation encompassed items such as study population, sampling, methods of identification and measurement of the condition, and statistical analysis. The Cochrane bias assessment tool was employed for this purpose [14].

Data analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 2.0 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA). Pooled mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables were calculated with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated through Cochran’s Q test and the I2 statistic. Statistical assessment of publication bias was performed using Begg’s test, considering a P-value less than 0.05 as indicative of statistically significant publication bias.

Result

The initial searches yielded 723 citations from database searches. Following the title and abstract screening, we acquired full-paper copies for 27 citations that appeared potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, 16 full-text studies were subsequently excluded based on the reasons outlined in Fig. 1. Consequently, 12 RCTs, involving 707 participants, met the requirements and were included in the analysis.

Fig. 1 Flow chart of study selection for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Studies characteristics

First Author, Year	Study design/Duration	Sample size
Probiotic/control	Type of patient,
Mean age	Intervention	Control	Questionnaires	
Nikolova, 2023 [31]	RCT/8 weeks	24/25	Patients with depression,

32

	Probiotic capsule (2 × 109 CFU/g):

Bacillus subtilis, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium infantis, Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp bulgaricus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus helveticus, Lactobacillus salivarius, Lactococcus lactis, and Streptococcus thermophilus

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	HAMD	
Yamanbaeva, 2023 [32]	RCT/4 weeks	14/18	Patients with depression,

37

	Probiotic capsule (1.0 × 109 CFU/g):

Streptococcus thermophilus NCIMB 30,438

Bifidobacterium breve NCIMB 30,441

Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 30,435

Bifidobacterium infantis NCIMB 30,436

Lactobacillus acidophilus NCIMB 30,442

Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB 30,437

Lactobacillus paracasei NCIMB 30,439

Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp

Bulgaricus NCIMB 30,440

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	HAMD	
Mahboobi 2022 [33]	RCT/9 weeks	39/35	Patients with obesity and depressed mood,

36

	Magnesium + Probiotic capsule (1.8 × 109 CFU/g):

Lactobacillus rhamnosus

Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. Lactis

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	BDI	
Kreuzer

2022 [34]

	RCT/4 weeks	28/29	Patients with major depressive disorder,

43

	Probiotic capsule (7.5 × 109 CFU/g):

Bifidobacteria bifidum W23

Bifidobacteria lactis W51

Bifidobacteria lactis W52

Lactobacilli acidophilus W22

Lactobacilli casei W56

Lactobacilli paracasei W20

Lactobacilli plantarum W62

Lactobacilli salivarius W24

Lactobacilli lactis W19

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	HAMD

BDI

	
Ullah

2022 [35]

	RCT/6 weeks	33/32	Patients with depression, 41	Methionine + Probiotic capsule (3.0 × 109 CFU/g):

Lactobacillus helveticus

Bifidobacterium longum

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	HAMD	
Zhang

2021 [36]

	RCT/9 weeks	38/31	Patients with depression, 47	Probiotic capsule (1.0 × 109 CFU/g):

Lacticaseibacillus paracasei

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	HAMD

BDI

	
Reininghaus 2020 [37]	RCT/4 weeks	28/30	Patients with depression,

42

	Vitamin B7 + Probiotic capsule (2 × 109 CFU/g):

Bifidobacterium bifidum W23

Bifidobacterium lactis W51

Bifidobacterium lactis W52

Lactobacillus acidophilus W22

Lactobacillus casei W56

Lactobacillus paracasei W20

Lactobacillus plantarum W62

Lactobacillus salivarius W24

Lactobacillus lactis W19

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	HAMD

BDI

	
Chahwan 2019 [38]	RCT/8 weeks	34/36	Patients with depression,

36

	Probiotic capsule (2.5 × 109 CFU/g):

Bifidobacterium bifidum W23

Bifidobacterium lactis W51

Bifidobacterium lactis W52

Lactobacillus acidophilus W37

Lactobacillus brevis W63

Lactobacillus casei W56

Lactobacillus salivarius W24

Lactococcus lactis W19

Lactococcus lactis W58

	Placebo group received maltodextrin capsules	BDI

DASS

	
Kazemi

2019 [39]

	RCT/8 weeks	38/36	Patients with major depressive disorder,

34

	Probiotic capsule (10 × 109 CFU/g):

Lactobacillus helveticus R0052

Bifidobacterium longum R0175

	Placebo group received maltodextrin capsules	BDI	
Majeed

2018 [40]

	RCT/ 12 weeks	20/20	Patients with major depressive disorder,

42

	Probiotic capsule (2.0 × 109 CFU/g):

Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	MADRS

HAMD

	
Romjin

2017 [41]

	RCT/8 weeks	39/40	Patients with depression,

35

	Probiotic capsule (3.0 × 109 CFU/g):

Lactobacillus helveticus R0052

Bifidobacterium longum R0175

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	MADRS

DASS

	
Akkasheh, 2016 [42]	RCT/8 weeks	20/20	Patients with major depressive disorder, 37	Probiotic capsule (3.0 × 109 CFU/g):

Lactobacillus acidophilus

Lactobacillus casei

Bifidobacterium bifidum

	Placebo with no probiotic bacteria	BDI	

Risk of bias assessment

As detailed in Table 2, our risk of bias assessment revealed that the included studies generally exhibited a low risk of bias across several crucial domains. These domains included key criteria such as randomization procedures, blinding of participants and assessors, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting, and potential sources of bias. However, it is noteworthy that there was insufficient data available to ascertain the level of risk associated with allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment.

Table 2 Quality Assessment

Author	Random Sequence
Generation	Allocation Concealment	Blinding Of Participants And
Personnel	Blinding Of Outcome
Assessment	Incomplete Outcome
Data	Selective Reporting	
Nikolova	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Yamanbaeva	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Mahboobi	Low Risk	Low Risk	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Kreuzer	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Ullah	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Zhang	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Reininghaus	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Chahwan	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Kazemi	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Majeed	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Romjin	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	
Akkasheh	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Unclear	Low Risk	Low Risk	

Study characteristics

Table 1 provides an overview of study characteristics, including details related to setting, study design, number of participants, mean age, criteria utilized, and follow-up duration. Of the 12 RCTs, 8 studies used only probiotics and the remaining used probiotics with magnesium, methionine and vitamin b7. In relation to the control group, all studies compared the interventions studied with placebo with no probiotic bacteria. The status of depression reported in included trials were assessed using four different questionnaires; BDI, HAMD, DASS and MADRS.

Probiotics

The intervention in the study consisted of various probiotic capsules, each containing different strains and quantities of beneficial bacteria. These probiotic capsules included strains such as Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus salivarius, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium breve and Bifidobacterium longum. Some capsules were supplemented with additional nutrients like magnesium, methionine, or vitamin B7.

Relief of depressive and anxiety symptoms

BDI Questionnaires: Seven RCTs assessed the relief of depressive and anxiety symptoms using the BDI questionnaires. The meta-analysis revealed a significant decrease in depressive symptoms in favor of probiotics compared to the placebo group. The MD was − 2.69, with a 95% CI ranging from − 4.22 to -1.16, and a p-value of 0.00. This result suggests that probiotics had a notable positive impact on relieving depressive symptoms when assessed with the BDI (Table 3; Fig. 2). There was no evidence of publication bias (p-value > 0.05).

Table 3 Subgroup analysis based on the relief of depressive and anxiety symptoms

Questionnaires	No. of
study	No. of
participants	Pooled mean difference
(CI 95%)	P value
for overall effect	I2%	
BDI	7	430	-2.69 (-4.22/-1.16)	0.00	0.0	
HAMD	7	371	-1.40 (-3.29/0.48)	0.14	69.0	
DASS	2	149	2.57 (-0.71/5.80)	0.12	0.0	
MADRS	2	119	-2.41 (-9.18/5.73)	0.56	86.0	

Fig. 2 Pooled mean difference in the alleviation of depressive symptoms assessed by BDI scores

HAMD Questionnaires: Seven RCTs utilized the HAMD questionnaires to assess the relief of depressive and anxiety symptoms. In this case, the meta-analysis indicated a non-significant decrease in depressive symptoms favoring probiotics compared to the placebo. The MD was − 1.40, with a 95% CI ranging from − 3.29 to 0.48, and a p-value of 0.1. This finding suggests that the effects of probiotics on depressive symptoms, as measured by the HAMD, did not reach statistical significance (Table 3; Fig. 3). There was no evidence of publication bias (p-value > 0.05).

Fig. 3 Pooled mean difference in the alleviation of depressive symptoms assessed by HAMD scores

DASS and MADRS Scales: The meta-analysis of RCTs employing the DASS and MADRS scales revealed no significant differences between the probiotic and placebo groups. These scales encompass various dimensions of mood and depressive symptoms, and the results imply that probiotics did not show significant effects in relieving symptoms when assessed using these tools (Table 3). There was no evidence of publication bias (p-value > 0.05).

Adverse effects

Commonly reported adverse effects associated with probiotic use encompass a spectrum of mild gastrointestinal symptoms, which may include bloating, flatulence, abdominal discomfort, and occasionally, diarrhea.

Discussion

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis shed light on the potential impact of probiotics as a therapeutic intervention for the relief of depressive and anxiety symptoms. The most notable finding from our analysis is the significant decrease in the relief of depressive symptoms favoring probiotics when assessed using the BDI questionnaire. The MD of -2.69, with a 95% CI of -4.22 to -1.16, indicates a clinically meaningful reduction in depressive symptomatology. This result aligns with the emerging body of evidence suggesting a potential role for probiotics in ameliorating depressive symptoms, supporting the notion that the gut-brain axis plays a pivotal role in mood regulation [15–20]. However, when examining the HAMD questionnaire data, our analysis reveals a non-significant decrease in the relief of depressive symptoms favoring probiotics. Furthermore, our analysis of RCTs employing the DASS and MADRS scales did not demonstrate a significant difference in symptom relief between the probiotic and placebo groups.

The discrepancy between the findings with the BDI and the findings with HAMD, DASS, and MADRS highlights the complexity of assessing depressive symptoms. The BDI, a self-reported tool, captures subjective experiences and cognitive-affective symptoms, making it more sensitive to changes in mood and well-being due to probiotics. In contrast, clinician-administered scales like HAMD, DASS, and MADRS are typically considered the gold standard for assessing depressive symptoms as they emphasize observable symptoms and broader depressive dimensions, including somatic aspects, which might not capture subtle mood changes as effectively. This difference in measurement focus, sensitivity to change, and patient perception can influence outcomes. The BDI’s responsiveness to cognitive and emotional symptoms suggests probiotics may more effectively target these areas. Further research should use both self-reported and clinician-administered scales, explore probiotics’ mechanisms on different depression dimensions, and consider longer treatments and varied strains to fully understand their impact.

These findings also suggest that the effectiveness of probiotics in managing depression and anxiety may vary depending on the specific assessment tools used. It is crucial to recognize that these scales measure various dimensions of mood, and probiotics may exert their influence differently across these dimensions. Additionally, the choice of probiotic strains, dosages, and treatment durations may contribute to the variations in outcomes observed across included studies. Individual factors, such as a person’s baseline gut microbiota composition, genetics, and lifestyle, can also influence the response to probiotics.

Furthermore, the observed variations in the effectiveness of probiotics across different assessment tools warrant a deeper exploration of the mechanisms through which probiotics may impact depressive and anxiety symptoms.

Gut microbiota modulation

Probiotics are known to exert their primary effects by modulating the composition and diversity of the gut microbiota. The gut microbiota has emerged as a critical player in the gut-brain axis, influencing neuroimmune and neuroendocrine pathways. Probiotics may restore microbial balance, reducing the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and promoting the synthesis of anti-inflammatory compounds. These changes can potentially alleviate neuroinflammation, which has been implicated in the pathogenesis of depression and anxiety [21–24].

Neurotransmitter production

The gut is a significant site for neurotransmitter production, with serotonin, often called the “feel-good” neurotransmitter, being of particular relevance. Probiotics may enhance the synthesis of serotonin and other neurotransmitters within the gut. These neurotransmitters can then signal the brain through the vagus nerve, influencing mood and emotional regulation [25, 26].

Immune system modulation

Probiotics can influence the immune system, which plays a crucial role in mood regulation. Dysregulation of the immune response, characterized by increased inflammation, has been associated with depression and anxiety. Probiotics may mitigate this immune dysregulation by promoting anti-inflammatory responses and reducing the release of pro-inflammatory molecules [26–28].

Metabolite production

Probiotics can produce various metabolites during their fermentation processes. These metabolites have been shown to have anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. They may modulate the gut-brain axis by acting as signaling molecules and influencing neural function [29, 30].

Synaptic plasticity and neurogenesis

Some probiotic strains may promote synaptic plasticity and neurogenesis in the brain. These processes are essential for learning, memory, and emotional regulation. Probiotics may indirectly support these mechanisms by reducing neuroinflammation and promoting a neuroprotective environment in the brain [26].

Differential effects of probiotic strains

In our meta-analysis, we evaluated the effects of various probiotic strains, including Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus salivarius, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium breve, and Bifidobacterium longum, on depressive and anxiety symptoms. Each of these strains has been studied for its potential to influence mood through mechanisms such as gut-brain axis modulation, neurotransmitter production, and immune system regulation.

Our findings indicate differential effects across these probiotic strains, particularly notable in their impact on various assessment scales. For instance, studies utilizing the BDI consistently showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms with probiotics containing strains such as Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidum. In contrast, the HAMD did not consistently demonstrate significant improvements, suggesting potential variations in sensitivity to changes in mood dimensions captured by different scales.

The observed effects may be attributed to the unique physiological properties of each strain, including their ability to produce neurotransmitters like serotonin, regulate inflammatory responses, and maintain gut barrier integrity. Lactobacillus strains, known for their anti-inflammatory properties and potential to enhance serotonin production in the gut, may exert more pronounced effects on self-reported mood symptoms measured by the BDI. On the other hand, strains like Bifidobacterium bifidum, which contribute to gut microbial balance and immune modulation, could influence broader aspects of depressive and anxiety symptoms captured by comprehensive scales like DASS and MADRS.

These strain-specific nuances underscore the importance of tailored probiotic interventions in mental health management. Future research should explore optimal combinations of probiotic strains, dosages, and treatment durations to maximize therapeutic outcomes. Additionally, investigating individual factors such as baseline microbiota composition, genetic predispositions, and lifestyle influences will further elucidate personalized approaches in probiotic therapy for mood disorders.

Our systematic review and meta-analysis, while informative, are subject to some limitations. A significant limitation of our study is the use of clinical instruments such as BDI, HAMD, DASS, and MADRS, which primarily assess depressive symptoms and may not sufficiently capture the presence or severity of anxiety symptoms. As state or trait anxiety cannot be clinically evaluated through these scales, our findings on anxiety should be interpreted with caution. Heterogeneity in study designs, including variations in probiotic strains ranging from single bacterial species to combinations of up to ten different bacterial species, as well as differences in treatment parameters, may introduce variability in treatment effects. Additionally, the utilization of diverse assessment tools capturing different dimensions of depression and anxiety could contribute to discrepancies in outcomes. Another notable limitation is the transient and temporary nature of shifts in gut microbiota induced by probiotic treatment. Alterations in gut microbiota composition may not be sustained over time, potentially necessitating longer treatment durations to achieve significant and lasting therapeutic effects. This transient effect could explain why some trials fail to observe substantial changes in the gut microbiome or improvements in mood within shorter intervention periods. Therefore, future research should prioritize evaluating the duration and sustainability of probiotic-induced microbiota changes to better understand their long-term impact on mental health outcomes and optimize treatment protocols.

Moreover, a limitation worth noting is the potential impact of confounders. While we conducted subgroup analyses based on relief from depressive and anxiety symptoms and ensured consistent treatment durations, other factors such as participants’ baseline health, concurrent medications, lifestyle, and dietary habits were not consistently reported or controlled for across studies. This lack of detailed information makes it challenging to assess their potential impact on outcomes. Additionally, some of the included studies in our meta-analysis were marked as ‘unclear’ regarding blinding and allocation concealment, introducing uncertainty regarding the internal validity of the studies and the reliability of their outcomes. The presence of unclear blinding and allocation concealment raises concerns about the risk of performance and detection bias, which may influence the interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis offers valuable insights into the strain-specific effects of probiotics containing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species on depressive and anxiety symptoms. While our findings suggest a significant reduction in depressive symptoms based on the BDI scale favoring probiotics, the lack of significant effects observed on the HAMD, DASS, and MADRS scales underscores the complexity inherent in these conditions. It is imperative to acknowledge the mixed results across different measurement scales, indicating the need for cautious interpretation. Therefore, we advocate for a nuanced understanding of probiotics’ impacts on various dimensions of mood, emphasizing the necessity for further research. Future studies should explore optimal probiotic formulations, treatment durations, and robust methodologies to better elucidate probiotics’ therapeutic potential in managing depression and anxiety.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Acknowledgements

MJ Nasiri received grant supported by the Research Department of the School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Grant number: 43008669).

Author contributions

All authors contributed equally to the conception, design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and writing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

This research was conducted with no external funding.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors have consented to the publication of this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

BDI Beck Depression Inventory

HAMD Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

DASS Depression Anxiety Stress Scales

MADRS Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale

RCTs Randomized Controlled Trials

CI Confidence Interval

MD Mean Difference

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Tiller JW Depression and anxiety Med J Australia 2013 199 6 S28 31 25370281
Tiller JW. Depression and anxiety. Med J Australia. 2013;199(6):S28–31.25370281
2. Clarke DM Currie KC Depression, anxiety and their relationship with chronic diseases: a review of the epidemiology, risk and treatment evidence Med J Aust 2009 190 S54 60 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02471.x 19351294
Clarke DM, Currie KC. Depression, anxiety and their relationship with chronic diseases: a review of the epidemiology, risk and treatment evidence. Med J Aust. 2009;190:S54–60.19351294 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02471.x
3. Accettulli A Psycho-Microbiology, a New Frontier for Probiotics: an exploratory overview Microorganisms 2022 10 11 2141 10.3390/microorganisms10112141 36363733
Accettulli A, et al. Psycho-Microbiology, a New Frontier for Probiotics: an exploratory overview. Microorganisms. 2022;10(11):2141.36363733 10.3390/microorganisms10112141
4. Peirce JM Alviña K The role of inflammation and the gut microbiome in depression and anxiety J Neurosci Res 2019 97 10 1223 41 10.1002/jnr.24476 31144383
Peirce JM, Alviña K. The role of inflammation and the gut microbiome in depression and anxiety. J Neurosci Res. 2019;97(10):1223–41.31144383 10.1002/jnr.24476
5. Shi LH Beneficial properties of probiotics Trop life Sci Res 2016 27 2 73 10.21315/tlsr2016.27.2.6 27688852
Shi LH, et al. Beneficial properties of probiotics. Trop life Sci Res. 2016;27(2):73.27688852 10.21315/tlsr2016.27.2.6
6. Pirbaglou M Probiotic supplementation can positively affect anxiety and depressive symptoms: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials Nutr Res 2016 36 9 889 98 10.1016/j.nutres.2016.06.009 27632908
Pirbaglou M, et al. Probiotic supplementation can positively affect anxiety and depressive symptoms: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Res. 2016;36(9):889–98.27632908 10.1016/j.nutres.2016.06.009
7. Nikolova V Probiotics as Adjunctive Treatment in Major Depressive Disorder: estimates of treatment effect and underlying mechanisms from a double-blind placebo-controlled Randomised Pilot Trial BJPsych Open 2023 9 S1 S64 5 10.1192/bjo.2023.222
Nikolova V, et al. Probiotics as Adjunctive Treatment in Major Depressive Disorder: estimates of treatment effect and underlying mechanisms from a double-blind placebo-controlled Randomised Pilot Trial. BJPsych Open. 2023;9(S1):S64–5.10.1192/bjo.2023.222
8. Mazziotta C Probiotics mechanism of action on immune cells and beneficial effects on human health Cells 2023 12 1 184 10.3390/cells12010184 36611977
Mazziotta C, et al. Probiotics mechanism of action on immune cells and beneficial effects on human health. Cells. 2023;12(1):184.36611977 10.3390/cells12010184
9. Johnson D A microbial-based Approach to Mental Health: the potential of Probiotics in the treatment of Depression Nutrients 2023 15 6 1382 10.3390/nu15061382 36986112
Johnson D, et al. A microbial-based Approach to Mental Health: the potential of Probiotics in the treatment of Depression. Nutrients. 2023;15(6):1382.36986112 10.3390/nu15061382
10. Jach ME The role of Probiotics and their metabolites in the treatment of Depression Molecules 2023 28 7 3213 10.3390/molecules28073213 37049975
Jach ME, et al. The role of Probiotics and their metabolites in the treatment of Depression. Molecules. 2023;28(7):3213.37049975 10.3390/molecules28073213
11. Sabit H The Effect of Probiotic supplementation on the gut–brain Axis in Psychiatric patients Curr Issues Mol Biol 2023 45 5 4080 99 10.3390/cimb45050260 37232729
Sabit H, et al. The Effect of Probiotic supplementation on the gut–brain Axis in Psychiatric patients. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2023;45(5):4080–99.37232729 10.3390/cimb45050260
12. Ansari F The role of probiotics and prebiotics in modulating of the gut-brain axis Front Nutr 2023 10 1173660 10.3389/fnut.2023.1173660 37565035
Ansari F, et al. The role of probiotics and prebiotics in modulating of the gut-brain axis. Front Nutr. 2023;10:1173660.37565035 10.3389/fnut.2023.1173660
13. Page MJ The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Int J Surg 2021 88 105906 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 33789826
Page MJ, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.33789826 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
14. Cumpston M, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews; 2019. 2019(10).
15. Ansari F et al. The role of probiotics and prebiotics in modulating of the gut-brain axis. Front Nutr, 2023. 10.
16. Cai Y Probiotics therapy show significant improvement in obesity and neurobehavioral disorders symptoms Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2023 13 533 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1178399
Cai Y, et al. Probiotics therapy show significant improvement in obesity and neurobehavioral disorders symptoms. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:533.10.3389/fcimb.2023.1178399
17. Groeger D Interactions between symptoms and psychological status in irritable bowel syndrome: an exploratory study of the impact of a probiotic combination Neurogastroenterology Motil 2023 35 1 e14477 10.1111/nmo.14477
Groeger D, et al. Interactions between symptoms and psychological status in irritable bowel syndrome: an exploratory study of the impact of a probiotic combination. Neurogastroenterology Motil. 2023;35(1):e14477.10.1111/nmo.14477
18. Jha P, Dangi N, Sharma S. Probiotics Show Promise as a Novel Natural Treatment for Neurological disorders. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology; 2024.
19. Tian P Multi-probiotics ameliorate major depressive disorder and accompanying gastrointestinal syndromes via serotonergic system regulation J Adv Res 2023 45 117 25 10.1016/j.jare.2022.05.003 35618633
Tian P, et al. Multi-probiotics ameliorate major depressive disorder and accompanying gastrointestinal syndromes via serotonergic system regulation. J Adv Res. 2023;45:117–25.35618633 10.1016/j.jare.2022.05.003
20. Radford-Smith DE Anthony DC Prebiotic and probiotic modulation of the microbiota–gut–brain Axis in Depression Nutrients 2023 15 8 1880 10.3390/nu15081880 37111100
Radford-Smith DE, Anthony DC. Prebiotic and probiotic modulation of the microbiota–gut–brain Axis in Depression. Nutrients. 2023;15(8):1880.37111100 10.3390/nu15081880
21. Cammarota G Gut microbiota modulation: probiotics, antibiotics or fecal microbiota transplantation? Intern Emerg Med 2014 9 365 73 10.1007/s11739-014-1069-4 24664520
Cammarota G, et al. Gut microbiota modulation: probiotics, antibiotics or fecal microbiota transplantation? Intern Emerg Med. 2014;9:365–73.24664520 10.1007/s11739-014-1069-4
22. Vieira AT Fukumori C Ferreira CM New insights into therapeutic strategies for gut microbiota modulation in inflammatory diseases Clin Translational Immunol 2016 5 6 e87 10.1038/cti.2016.38
Vieira AT, Fukumori C, Ferreira CM. New insights into therapeutic strategies for gut microbiota modulation in inflammatory diseases. Clin Translational Immunol. 2016;5(6):e87.10.1038/cti.2016.38
23. Marques TM Gut microbiota modulation and implications for host health: dietary strategies to influence the gut–brain axis Innovative Food Sci Emerg Technol 2014 22 239 47 10.1016/j.ifset.2013.10.016
Marques TM, et al. Gut microbiota modulation and implications for host health: dietary strategies to influence the gut–brain axis. Innovative Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2014;22:239–47.10.1016/j.ifset.2013.10.016
24. Walter J Maldonado-Gómez MX Martínez I To engraft or not to engraft: an ecological framework for gut microbiome modulation with live microbes Curr Opin Biotechnol 2018 49 129 39 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.08.008 28866242
Walter J, Maldonado-Gómez MX, Martínez I. To engraft or not to engraft: an ecological framework for gut microbiome modulation with live microbes. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2018;49:129–39.28866242 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.08.008
25. Sharma R Psychobiotics: the next-generation probiotics for the brain Curr Microbiol 2021 78 449 63 10.1007/s00284-020-02289-5 33394083
Sharma R, et al. Psychobiotics: the next-generation probiotics for the brain. Curr Microbiol. 2021;78:449–63.33394083 10.1007/s00284-020-02289-5
26. Hori T Matsuda K Oishi K Probiotics: a dietary factor to modulate the gut microbiome, host immune system, and gut–brain interaction Microorganisms 2020 8 9 1401 10.3390/microorganisms8091401 32933067
Hori T, Matsuda K, Oishi K. Probiotics: a dietary factor to modulate the gut microbiome, host immune system, and gut–brain interaction. Microorganisms. 2020;8(9):1401.32933067 10.3390/microorganisms8091401
27. Yeşilyurt N Involvement of probiotics and postbiotics in the immune system modulation Biologics 2021 1 2 89 110 10.3390/biologics1020006
Yeşilyurt N, et al. Involvement of probiotics and postbiotics in the immune system modulation. Biologics. 2021;1(2):89–110.10.3390/biologics1020006
28. Liu Y Wang J Wu C Modulation of gut microbiota and immune system by probiotics, pre-biotics, and post-biotics Front Nutr 2022 8 634897 10.3389/fnut.2021.634897 35047537
Liu Y, Wang J, Wu C. Modulation of gut microbiota and immune system by probiotics, pre-biotics, and post-biotics. Front Nutr. 2022;8:634897.35047537 10.3389/fnut.2021.634897
29. Stanton C Fermented functional foods based on probiotics and their biogenic metabolites Curr Opin Biotechnol 2005 16 2 198 203 10.1016/j.copbio.2005.02.008 15831387
Stanton C, et al. Fermented functional foods based on probiotics and their biogenic metabolites. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2005;16(2):198–203.15831387 10.1016/j.copbio.2005.02.008
30. Ross R Specific metabolite production by gut microbiota as a basis for probiotic function Int Dairy J 2010 20 4 269 76 10.1016/j.idairyj.2009.12.003
Ross R, et al. Specific metabolite production by gut microbiota as a basis for probiotic function. Int Dairy J. 2010;20(4):269–76.10.1016/j.idairyj.2009.12.003
31. Nikolova VL Acceptability, tolerability, and estimates of putative treatment effects of probiotics as adjunctive treatment in patients with depression: a randomized clinical trial JAMA Psychiatry 2023 80 8 842 7 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.1817 37314797
Nikolova VL, et al. Acceptability, tolerability, and estimates of putative treatment effects of probiotics as adjunctive treatment in patients with depression: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80(8):842–7.37314797 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.1817
32. Yamanbaeva G Effects of a probiotic add-on treatment on fronto-limbic brain structure, function, and perfusion in depression: secondary neuroimaging findings of a randomized controlled trial J Affect Disord 2023 324 529 38 10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.142 36610592
Yamanbaeva G, et al. Effects of a probiotic add-on treatment on fronto-limbic brain structure, function, and perfusion in depression: secondary neuroimaging findings of a randomized controlled trial. J Affect Disord. 2023;324:529–38.36610592 10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.142
33. Mahboobi S et al. Effects of probiotic and magnesium co-supplementation on mood, cognition, intestinal barrier function and inflammation in individuals with obesity and depressed mood: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Front Nutr, 2022. 9.
34. Kreuzer K et al. The PROVIT Study-effects of multispecies Probiotic add-on treatment on Metabolomics in Major Depressive Disorder-A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Metabolites, 2022. 12(8).
35. Ullah H, et al. Efficacy of a food supplement based on S-adenosyl methionine and probiotic strains in subjects with subthreshold depression and mild-to-moderate depression: a monocentric, randomized, cross-over, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy; 2022. p. 156.
36. Zhang XM et al. Effects of fermented milk containing lacticaseibacillus paracasei strain Shirota on Constipation in patients with Depression: a Randomized, Double-Blind, placebo-controlled trial. Nutrients, 2021. 13(7).
37. Reininghaus EZ et al. PROVIT: supplementary probiotic treatment and vitamin B7 in Depression-A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients, 2020. 12(11).
38. Chahwan B Gut feelings: a randomised, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial of probiotics for depressive symptoms J Affect Disord 2019 253 317 26 10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.097 31078831
Chahwan B, et al. Gut feelings: a randomised, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial of probiotics for depressive symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2019;253:317–26.31078831 10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.097
39. Kazemi A Effect of probiotic and prebiotic vs placebo on psychological outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder: a randomized clinical trial Clin Nutr 2019 38 2 522 8 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.04.010 29731182
Kazemi A, et al. Effect of probiotic and prebiotic vs placebo on psychological outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(2):522–8.29731182 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.04.010
40. Majeed M, et al. Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 for the management of major depression with irritable bowel syndrome: a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled, multi-centre, pilot clinical study. Food & Nutrition Research; 2018. p. 62.
41. Romijn AR A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum for the symptoms of depression Australian New Z J Psychiatry 2017 51 8 810 21 10.1177/0004867416686694 28068788
Romijn AR, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum for the symptoms of depression. Australian New Z J Psychiatry. 2017;51(8):810–21.28068788 10.1177/0004867416686694
42. Akkasheh G Clinical and metabolic response to probiotic administration in patients with major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Nutrition 2016 32 3 315 20 10.1016/j.nut.2015.09.003 26706022
Akkasheh G, et al. Clinical and metabolic response to probiotic administration in patients with major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Nutrition. 2016;32(3):315–20.26706022 10.1016/j.nut.2015.09.003
