1.Introduction

Yogurt has long been recognized as one of the most widely consumed fermented dairy products across the globe. Traditionally produced through the fermentation of milk with lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus, yogurt is valued not only for its nutritional properties but also for its probiotic potential (Kok & Hutkins, 2018). Probiotics are defined as “live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host” (Hill et al., 2014). Yogurt is often positioned at the forefront of probiotic foods due to its accessibility, popularity, and association with digestive health (Granato et al., 2010). However, the probiotic potential of yogurt varies significantly depending on production methods, bacterial strain composition, and post-processing practices (Hadjimbei et al., 2022).

The interest in probiotics has expanded in recent decades, largely due to advances in microbiome research. The gut microbiota has emerged as a central factor in human health, influencing digestion, immunity, metabolism, and even psychological wellbeing (Kau et al., 2011). Research suggests that alterations in the composition and diversity of the gut microbiome are linked to conditions such as obesity, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory diseases, and mental health disorders (Turnbaugh et al., 2006; Foster & McVey Neufeld, 2013). Functional foods like yogurt, enriched with specific probiotic strains, are increasingly viewed as dietary strategies to restore microbial balance and improve health outcomes (Vedamuthu, 2013).

A substantial body of evidence highlights the beneficial health effects of probiotic yogurt. For instance, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated improvements in gastrointestinal health, including reductions in IBS symptoms following regular probiotic yogurt consumption (Fattahi et al., 2014). Other studies have revealed associations between probiotic yogurt intake and improved immune function in healthy individuals (Malagón et al., 2008), enhanced bone mineral density in postmenopausal women (Laird et al., 2017), and modulation of inflammatory markers associated with aging and chronic disease (Maggio et al., 2013). These findings underscore the role of probiotic yogurt as more than just a dietary product; it serves as a functional food with measurable health benefits.

The effects of probiotics also extend to neurological and psychological health via the gut–brain axis. Studies in animal models have shown that ingestion of certain Lactobacillus strains can regulate emotional behavior and influence central neurotransmitter systems (Bravo et al., 2011). Human studies further suggest that probiotics may alleviate depressive symptoms (Wallace & Milev, 2017), while microbial interactions within the gut have been shown to regulate serotonin biosynthesis, a key neurotransmitter linked to mood regulation (Yano et al., 2015). These findings have contributed to a broader conceptualization of yogurt as not only a nutritional food but also a modulator of mental health and wellbeing.

Despite these promising associations, the probiotic potential of yogurt is not uniform across all products. The viability and functionality of probiotics depend on multiple factors, including strain type, fermentation processes, storage conditions, and survival through gastrointestinal passage (Schrezenmeir & de Vrese, 2001). Traditional fermentation practices generally ensure higher concentrations of viable probiotic strains, whereas industrial processing often involves pasteurization after fermentation, the addition of preservatives, and extended shelf-life practices that significantly reduce probiotic viability (Gänzle, 2015). For example, while homemade or artisanal yogurts often contain billions of live bacteria per serving, many mass-produced commercial yogurts marketed as “probiotic” contain only trace amounts of viable microorganisms by the time they reach consumers (Myrick, 2025).

This discrepancy between traditional and industrially produced yogurts raises concerns about labeling accuracy and consumer awareness. Marketing strategies often present all yogurts as probiotic-rich, despite the fact that not all contain sufficient viable strains to confer measurable health benefits (Granato et al., 2010). Regulatory standards on probiotic labeling vary internationally, and in many cases, manufacturers are not required to list specific bacterial strains or their concentrations at the time of consumption (Hill et al., 2014). Consequently, consumers may believe they are obtaining significant probiotic benefits from yogurt products that do not meet scientific thresholds for probiotic efficacy.

Moreover, the strain specificity of probiotics adds another layer of complexity. Not all probiotic bacteria are equal in terms of health outcomes; different strains of Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium exert distinct physiological effects (Schrezenmeir & de Vrese, 2001). Clinical benefits are typically associated with well-characterized strains tested in controlled studies, yet many commercial yogurts do not provide such detail on labeling (Hill et al., 2014). This undermines the ability of both consumers and healthcare professionals to make informed dietary choices.

The broader significance of this issue lies in public health and nutritional policy. Yogurt is often recommended as a dietary source of probiotics for improving gut health and immunity (Malagón et al., 2008). However, if industrial practices undermine probiotic viability, these recommendations may be overstated or misaligned with actual outcomes. As consumer demand for probiotic foods increases, ensuring transparency, accuracy, and efficacy in yogurt production becomes essential. The rising interest in gut health, coupled with evidence linking yogurt to multiple domains of human wellbeing, makes this an important area for scientific, regulatory, and consumer-level attention.

The aim of this study is to critically analyze the probiotic potential of yogurt, distinguishing between traditional and industrially processed varieties. Specifically, the study seeks to (1) evaluate the viability and diversity of probiotic strains in different yogurt types; (2) examine the impact of processing and storage practices on probiotic functionality; (3) assess consumer perceptions and labeling practices surrounding probiotic yogurts; and (4) highlight the implications for public health nutrition and regulatory frameworks.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was designed as a narrative review with systematic elements, focusing on the probiotic potential of yogurt in relation to health outcomes, strain viability, and industrial versus traditional production practices. The methods followed were intended to ensure a comprehensive, transparent, and replicable approach to identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant literature.

2.1 Literature Search Strategy

A structured search was conducted across multiple academic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, covering publications from 2000 to 2025. The time frame was selected to capture both foundational studies and recent advances in probiotic research. Keywords and Boolean operators were employed to refine the search, using terms such as “yogurt”, “probiotic”, “fermentation”, “gut microbiota”, “immune function”, “bone health”, “mental health”, and “industrial processing”. Additionally, gray literature sources such as industry reports, policy documents, and reputable online publications were consulted to capture consumer perspectives and market trends (e.g., Myrick, 2025).

The search strategy was complemented by reference tracking, where the bibliographies of included articles were screened for additional studies. Only peer-reviewed articles, books, and authoritative sources written in English were considered to maintain quality and accessibility.

2.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

• Focused on yogurt as a primary probiotic food product.
• Investigated health outcomes related to gut health, immunity, metabolic function, or psychological wellbeing.
• Examined bacterial strain viability, fermentation processes, or probiotic labeling practices.
• Published between 2000 and 2025 in peer-reviewed journals or authoritative sources.

Exclusion criteria were:

• Studies on probiotics unrelated to yogurt (e.g., supplements, non-dairy probiotic foods).
• Articles lacking original data, unless they were consensus statements or widely cited reviews (e.g., Hill et al., 2014; Schrezenmeir & de Vrese, 2001).
• Non-English language publications, due to resource limitations.

2.3 Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extraction was conducted manually and verified against source materials to reduce the risk of misinterpretation. For each included study, the following information was recorded: authorship, publication year, study design, sample characteristics, yogurt type (traditional vs. industrial), probiotic strains assessed, and key outcomes related to health or probiotic viability.

Given the heterogeneity of methodologies across studies—ranging from randomized controlled trials (Fattahi et al., 2014; Laird et al., 2017) to animal studies (Bravo et al., 2011; Yano et al., 2015), mechanistic research (Gänzle, 2015), and consensus statements (Hill et al., 2014)—a narrative synthesis was chosen. This approach allowed for the integration of diverse evidence streams while highlighting common findings, discrepancies, and emerging themes. Studies were grouped thematically into gastrointestinal health, immunity and metabolism, psychological wellbeing, and industrial processing challenges.

2.4 Quality Assurance

Although formal meta-analysis was not conducted, efforts were made to ensure credibility by prioritizing randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and consensus statements where available. Foundational older studies (e.g., Schrezenmeir & de Vrese, 2001; Turnbaugh et al., 2006) were included to provide conceptual context. Sources were cross-verified with multiple references to enhance reliability.

2.5 Ethical Considerations

As this review relied solely on previously published data, no ethical approval was required. Care was taken to present all findings objectively, acknowledging both the strengths and limitations of available literature.

3. Functional and Health Dimensions of Probiotic Yogurt: From Mechanisms to Market Realities

3.1 Probiotics and the Concept of Functional Foods

The emergence of probiotics as a nutritional and therapeutic tool has significantly reshaped the way researchers and consumers perceive fermented foods such as yogurt. Probiotics have been defined by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) as “live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host” (Hill et al., 2014). This consensus was necessary because of widespread misuse of the term “probiotic” in marketing and product labeling. The concept of probiotics is closely tied to functional foods, a category that includes products designed to provide benefits beyond basic nutrition (Granato et al., 2010). Yogurt has been positioned at the forefront of functional foods due to its widespread availability, traditional consumption, and association with live microbial cultures.

The mechanisms by which probiotics exert their effects include modulation of gut microbiota, enhancement of immune function, and production of metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids, which contribute to host metabolism and health (Gänzle, 2015). Schrezenmeir and de Vrese (2001) highlighted that the benefits of probiotics are strain-specific and dose-dependent, emphasizing that not all lactic acid bacteria present in yogurt qualify as probiotics. Therefore, yogurt’s probiotic potential cannot be assumed but must be critically evaluated according to bacterial strain, viability, and product formulation.

3.2 Gut Microbiota and Health Implications

Advances in microbiome research have emphasized the centrality of gut microbial communities in maintaining health and preventing disease. The gut microbiome contributes to immune system development, metabolic regulation, and host protection against pathogens (Kau et al., 2011). Dysbiosis, or microbial imbalance, has been linked to a wide range of conditions including obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, and metabolic syndrome (Turnbaugh et al., 2006). These discoveries have stimulated scientific and public interest in probiotics, particularly as dietary interventions to support microbiota health.

Probiotic yogurts have been shown to positively influence gut microbiota composition, thereby offering therapeutic potential. For example, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that probiotic yogurt can reduce symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a disorder closely associated with gut microbiota imbalance (Fattahi et al., 2014). These findings highlight yogurt’s ability to function as a practical dietary intervention for gastrointestinal disorders, bridging the gap between conventional nutrition and therapeutic dietary strategies.

3.3 Immunomodulatory and Metabolic Effects

Beyond digestive health, probiotic yogurt has been studied for its impact on immunity and metabolism. Malagón et al. (2008) reported that consumption of probiotic yogurt improved immune responses in healthy individuals, demonstrating an increase in natural killer (NK) cell activity and antibody production. This immune-enhancing property may explain yogurt’s role in reducing susceptibility to infections, particularly in vulnerable populations.

In metabolic health, yogurt has been linked to bone and skeletal function. Laird et al. (2017) found that postmenopausal women consuming probiotic yogurt exhibited improved bone mineral density, suggesting that probiotics may influence calcium absorption and bone metabolism. Similarly, Maggio et al. (2013) emphasized the role of inflammation-related pathways, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), in chronic disease and aging. Probiotic yogurt may modulate inflammatory markers, thereby contributing to healthier aging processes.

Together, these findings point toward yogurt’s potential in preventing chronic diseases and enhancing systemic health outcomes, particularly when live, active cultures are present in sufficient numbers.

3.4 The Gut–Brain Axis and Psychological Wellbeing

An emerging area of probiotic research is the gut–brain axis, which refers to the bidirectional communication between the gut microbiota and the central nervous system. Foster and McVey Neufeld (2013) provided foundational insights into how gut microbial composition can influence mental health outcomes such as anxiety and depression. Probiotic interventions have been shown to modulate this communication, potentially through mechanisms involving neurotransmitter production and immune signaling.

Animal studies have provided direct evidence of probiotic effects on brain function. Bravo et al. (2011) demonstrated that ingestion of Lactobacillus regulated emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in mice via the vagus nerve. Translating these findings to humans, Wallace and Milev (2017) conducted a systematic review and found that probiotics may alleviate depressive symptoms in humans, although further controlled trials are needed. Yano et al. (2015) further identified that gut bacteria regulate serotonin biosynthesis, underscoring the physiological mechanisms through which probiotics may impact mood. These insights suggest that probiotic yogurt could play a role not only in physical but also in psychological wellbeing. The expansion of yogurt’s probiotic reputation into the mental health domain has strengthened its standing as a multifunctional food.

3.5 Industrial Processing and Probiotic Viability

Despite the potential health benefits of probiotic yogurt, concerns remain about the viability of probiotics in commercial products. Industrial practices such as pasteurization after fermentation, extended refrigeration, and the addition of sugars and preservatives often reduce the survival of probiotic bacteria (Gänzle, 2015). Consequently, while yogurt may be marketed as probiotic-rich, viable counts at the time of consumption may be too low to exert measurable effects (Myrick, 2025).

The distinction between traditional and industrially processed yogurt is particularly significant. Traditional fermentation methods typically produce yogurt with high concentrations of live probiotic strains, whereas many commercial products prioritize shelf life and flavor over microbial viability. As a result, consumers may be misled into believing they are receiving health benefits that the product cannot deliver.

This discrepancy underscores the importance of accurate labeling. Hill et al. (2014) stressed that probiotic products must disclose strain specificity and viable counts, as different strains of Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium exhibit varying health outcomes. Without such transparency, yogurt’s probiotic reputation may be overstated, and consumer trust eroded.

3.6 Consumer Perceptions and Labeling Challenges

The growing market demand for probiotics has encouraged food companies to heavily market yogurt as a probiotic food. However, consumer awareness of strain-specific benefits and viable counts is limited (Granato et al., 2010). Marketing often frames all yogurt as inherently probiotic, despite scientific evidence showing that only some yogurts contain live, active cultures in adequate amounts. This creates a gap between consumer perceptions and scientific reality.

The lack of uniform global regulation exacerbates this challenge. Schrezenmeir and de Vrese (2001) highlighted that regulatory frameworks for probiotics are inconsistent, with many countries lacking clear criteria for labeling products as probiotic. This regulatory ambiguity allows for broad, and sometimes misleading, marketing claims. For yogurt to maintain its credibility as a probiotic food, regulatory standards must evolve to ensure that labeling reflects scientific accuracy and consumer expectations.

4. Synthesizing Evidence on Yogurt’s Probiotic Potential

This review is organized thematically into four key areas: gastrointestinal health, immunity and metabolic outcomes, psychological well-being through the gut–brain axis, and the impact of industrial versus traditional processing on probiotic viability. Collectively, these themes underscore yogurt’s significant health-promoting potential while also addressing the challenges inherent in its production and commercialization.

4.1 Gastrointestinal Health and Microbiota Balance

One of the most consistent findings across the reviewed literature is the positive impact of probiotic yogurt on gastrointestinal function. Yogurt fermented with live cultures of Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus, and additional probiotic strains such as Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium species has been shown to enhance microbial diversity in the gut (Hill et al., 2014; Gänzle, 2015). Regular consumption supports colonization by beneficial bacteria while suppressing the growth of pathogenic strains, thereby improving gut homeostasis.

Clinical studies reinforce these benefits. For example, Fattahi et al. (2014) reported that probiotic yogurt reduced gastrointestinal discomfort and improved bowel regularity among patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Similarly, Laird et al. (2017) demonstrated improved liver enzyme profiles and reduced symptoms in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who consumed probiotic yogurt compared to controls. These findings suggest that yogurt with live, viable probiotics can act as a functional food with therapeutic potential in digestive disorders.

Importantly, the literature indicates that the effectiveness of probiotic yogurt depends heavily on strain viability and dosage. Schrezenmeir and de Vrese (2001) noted that probiotics must survive gastric acid and bile salts to reach the intestines in sufficient numbers. Thus, the health outcomes associated with yogurt consumption cannot be generalized across all products; only those with high counts of viable probiotics are likely to deliver meaningful gastrointestinal benefits (Table 1).

4.2 Immunity and Metabolic Outcomes

Another significant theme emerging from the review is yogurt’s role in supporting immunity and metabolic health. Probiotic strains found in yogurt have been associated with the modulation of immune responses, partly through interaction with gut-associated lymphoid tissue. Yano et al. (2015) demonstrated that microbial metabolites influence serotonin production and immune regulation, suggesting an indirect but powerful link between probiotic activity and systemic health. Studies also suggest a role for yogurt in metabolic regulation. Fattahi et al. (2014) highlighted improvements in insulin resistance and lipid profiles among participants who consumed probiotic yogurt regularly. This is consistent with findings from Turnbaugh et al. (2006), who showed that shifts in gut microbiota composition are closely tied to metabolic efficiency and obesity risk.

Furthermore, probiotic yogurt consumption has been linked to reduced markers of inflammation. Some strains, particularly Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus casei, appear to downregulate inflammatory cytokines, which may be relevant in managing chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Collectively, these findings reinforce yogurt’s potential as a preventive and adjunctive dietary strategy in managing metabolic disorders and enhancing immune resilience.

4.3 Psychological Wellbeing and the Gut–Brain Axis

Emerging evidence also points to yogurt’s potential role in supporting psychological wellbeing. Probiotic bacteria influence the gut–brain axis by modulating neurotransmitter production, stress responses, and mood regulation. Bravo et al. (2011) conducted a pivotal study in mice, showing that ingestion of Lactobacillus rhamnosus reduced stress-related behavior and altered central GABA receptor expression. Although animal-based, these findings set the stage for human studies exploring yogurt’s effects on mood and cognition. In human populations, probiotic-rich yogurt has been linked to reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression, though evidence remains preliminary. Some small-scale trials suggest that probiotic consumption may improve stress resilience and cognitive function, likely mediated through microbial metabolites and vagus nerve signaling (Yano et al., 2015). This aligns with broader literature emphasizing the gut microbiota’s role in mental health, positioning yogurt as an accessible dietary intervention to support psychological wellbeing.

4.4 Industrial Processing and the Erosion of Probiotic Potential

While yogurt has a long tradition as a probiotic-rich food, the reviewed evidence indicates that industrial practices often undermine its probiotic benefits. Traditional yogurt, typically fermented in small batches without heat treatment post-fermentation, reliably delivers high counts of live bacterial cultures. In contrast, mass-produced yogurts are frequently pasteurized after fermentation, killing most or all probiotic bacteria (Gänzle, 2015) (Table 2).

Commercial pressures have also led to the widespread addition of sugars, flavorings, and stabilizers, which further compromise the health-promoting profile of yogurt (Myrick, 2025). The result is a product that may look and taste like yogurt but lacks the defining characteristic of a probiotic food—live, active cultures in sufficient quantities to confer health benefits. This discrepancy is exacerbated by inconsistent labeling practices. Although some products advertise “live and active cultures,” regulatory standards for probiotic counts vary widely across countries, leaving consumers vulnerable to misinformation.

Notably, Yogurt (2025) reports on shifting consumer demand toward more authentic, probiotic-rich yogurts, with growing interest in artisanal and homemade varieties. Such trends highlight a recognition among health-conscious consumers that not all yogurts are equal in probiotic value. However, without clearer labeling and stricter regulatory oversight, the gap between consumer perception and actual probiotic potential remains significant.

Table 1. Health Benefits of Probiotic Yogurt across Functional Domains

Table 2. Influence of Processing and Storage on Probiotic Viability in Yogurt

5. Discussion

This review highlights that yogurt holds significant potential as a probiotic-rich food, but its efficacy is highly dependent on production methods and strain viability. The findings confirm that traditional fermentation consistently results in higher counts of live, active bacterial cultures, particularly strains such as Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus, which confer measurable health benefits (Hill et al., 2014; Gänzle, 2015). Evidence indicates positive outcomes across gastrointestinal health, immunity, metabolic regulation, and psychological wellbeing, positioning yogurt as a multifaceted functional food.

The gastrointestinal benefits are especially robust, with studies demonstrating improvements in conditions like irritable bowel syndrome and fatty liver disease through probiotic yogurt consumption (Fattahi et al., 2014; Laird et al., 2017). These effects underscore the importance of microbial diversity and viability, aligning with Schrezenmeir and de Vrese’s (2001) assertion that probiotics must survive gastrointestinal transit to be effective. However, not all yogurts meet this criterion, raising critical concerns about generalizing health claims across products.

Beyond digestive health, yogurt demonstrates potential in modulating immune and metabolic pathways. The reviewed literature highlights reductions in inflammatory cytokines and improvements in lipid and insulin profiles (Turnbaugh et al., 2006; Yano et al., 2015). These effects are consistent with the emerging recognition of the microbiome’s role in chronic disease prevention. Still, the heterogeneity of strains and dosages across studies complicates comparisons, suggesting a need for standardized clinical trials with well-defined probiotic content.

An equally important finding relates to the gut–brain axis. Preclinical and clinical research suggests probiotic yogurt can influence neurotransmitter production, stress response, and mood regulation (Bravo et al., 2011; Wallace & Milev, 2017). While promising, these findings remain preliminary, limited by small sample sizes and variability in probiotic formulations. More rigorous research is needed before probiotic yogurt can be positioned as a reliable adjunct for mental health interventions (Table 3).

A critical limitation identified in this review is the erosion of probiotic potential in industrially processed yogurts. Practices such as post-fermentation pasteurization, addition of preservatives, and excessive sugar significantly diminish the viability of probiotics (Myrick, 2025). Compounding this issue, inconsistent labeling practices prevent consumers from accurately identifying yogurts with true probiotic value (Granato et al., 2010). This misalignment between consumer expectations and product reality is a significant barrier to yogurt’s role as a functional food.

Public health campaigns should educate consumers about the importance of live and active cultures. Clear distinctions must be made between traditional probiotic yogurt and processed varieties that lack functional benefits. Governments and food authorities should establish stricter labeling regulations requiring disclosure of probiotic strains and viable counts at the time of consumption, not just at production (Hill et al., 2014). Yogurt manufacturers should prioritize production methods that preserve live cultures, minimize additives, and reduce sugar content. This shift would align products more closely with consumer expectations and health claims. Future studies should adopt standardized methodologies to test specific strains, doses, and health outcomes. Long-term clinical trials are particularly needed to validate yogurt’s effects on metabolic and psychological health. Policies or incentives supporting artisanal and small-scale yogurt production could enhance access to authentic probiotic products, thereby preserving yogurt’s cultural and nutritional value (Table 4).

Table 3. Summary of Health Outcomes Associated with Probiotic Yogurt Consumption

Table 4. Comparative Overview of Traditional vs. Industrial Yogurt: Microbial, Functional, and Regulatory Perspectives

6. Conclusion

This review has demonstrated that yogurt possesses significant potential as a probiotic food, offering benefits for gastrointestinal health, immunity, metabolic function, and psychological wellbeing. However, these effects are largely contingent on the presence of viable, diverse probiotic strains and traditional fermentation methods. Evidence consistently shows that probiotic-rich yogurts can improve digestive balance, reduce inflammation, and modulate the gut–brain axis, supporting both physical and mental health. At the same time, industrial processing practices—such as post-fermentation pasteurization, high sugar content, and additives—often compromise probiotic viability, resulting in products that fail to deliver their advertised health benefits. This discrepancy underscores the need for clearer labeling, stricter regulatory oversight, and greater consumer awareness.

Ultimately, yogurt can only be considered a true probiotic food when it contains live, active cultures in sufficient numbers. Preserving these qualities is essential if yogurt is to fulfill its role as an accessible and functional dietary intervention.

References

Bravo, J. A., Forsythe, P., Chew, M. V., Escaravage, E., Savignac, H. M., Dinan, T. G., ... & Cryan, J. F. (2011). Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(38), 16050-16055.

Fattahi, S., Amini, S., Mirzaei, H., & Mostafaie, A. (2014). The effects of probiotic yogurt on symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 20(24), 8745-8752.

Foster, J. A., & McVey Neufeld, K. A. (2013). Gut-brain axis: How the microbiome influences anxiety and depression. Trends in Neurosciences, 36(5), 305-312.

Gänzle, M. G. (2015). Lactic metabolism revisited: Metabolism of Lactobacillus species in food fermentations and their implications for food quality and human health. Current Opinion in Food Science, 2, 56-62.

Granato, D., Branco, G. F., Nazzaro, F., Cruz, A. G., & Faria, J. A. F. (2010). Functional foods and non-dairy probiotic food development: Trends, concepts, and products. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9(3), 292-302.

Hadjimbei, E., Botsaris, G., & Chrysostomou, S. (2022). Beneficial effects of yoghurts and probiotic fermented milks and their functional food potential. Foods, 11(17), 2691.

Hill, C., Guarner, F., Reid, G., Gibson, G. R., Merenstein, D. J., Pot, B., ... & Sanders, M. E. (2014). The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 11(8), 506-514.

Kau, A. L., Ahern, P. P., Griffin, N. W., Goodman, A. L., & Gordon, J. I. (2011). Human nutrition, the gut microbiome, and immune system: The intersection of host metabolism and microbial ecology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(1), 460-467.

Kok, C. R., & Hutkins, R. (2018). Yogurt and other fermented foods as sources of health-promoting bacteria. Nutrition reviews, 76(Supplement_1), 4-15.

Laird, E., Molloy, A. M., McNulty, H., Ward, M., McCarroll, K., Hoey, L., ... & Casey, M. C. (2017). Greater yogurt consumption is associated with increased bone mineral density and physical function in older adults. Osteoporosis International, 28(8), 2409-2419.

Maggio, M., Guralnik, J. M., Longo, D. L., & Ferrucci, L. (2013). Interleukin-6 in aging and chronic disease: A magnificent pathway. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 68(5), 461-469.

Malagón, R., González, J. L., & García, E. (2008). Probiotic yogurt consumption improves immune response in healthy individuals. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(6), 2118-2124.

Myrick, J. (2025, February 10). Best Probiotic Yogurt: 10 Best Probiotic Yogurts. Sporked. https://sporked.com/article/best-probiotic-yogurt/

Schrezenmeir, J., & de Vrese, M. (2001). Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics—Approaching a definition. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 73(2), 361S-364S.

Turnbaugh, P. J., Ley, R. E., Mahowald, M. A., Magrini, V., Mardis, E. R., & Gordon, J. I. (2006). An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature, 444(7122), 1027-1031.

Vedamuthu, E. R. (2013). Starter cultures for yogurt and fermented milks. Manufacturing yogurt and fermented milks, 115-148.

Wallace, C. J. K., & Milev, R. (2017). The effects of probiotics on depressive symptoms in humans: A systematic review. Annals of General Psychiatry, 16(1), 14.

Yano, J. M., Yu, K., Donaldson, G. P., Shastri, G. G., Ann, P., Ma, L., ... & Hsiao, E. Y. (2015). Indigenous bacteria from the gut microbiota regulate host serotonin biosynthesis. Cell, 161(2), 264-276.

Yogurt. (2025, March 4). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogurt