Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 24: Suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2026

Abstract

The Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) process was developed to provide a harmonised safety assessment approach to support EFSA Scientific Panels and Units. The QPS approach assesses the taxonomic identity, body of knowledge and safety of microorganisms intentionally added to the food and feed chain. Safety concerns identified for a Taxonomic Unit (TU) are, where possible, reflected by ‘qualifications’ that should be assessed at the strain level by EFSA's Scientific Panels. During the period covered by this Statement, no new information warranted changes to the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of the 99 microorganisms notified to EFSA between October 2025 and March 2026 (47 as feed additives, 32 as food enzymes or additives, 5 as novel foods and 15 as plant protection products), 85 were not evaluated. These latter included 22 filamentous fungi, 6 Escherichia coli and 2 streptomyces (all excluded from the QPS evaluation), and 55 already present on the QPS list. Of the remaining 14 notifications, corresponding to 11 TUs, 7 were already assessed in the previous QPS 3‐years cycle Bacillus thuringiensis, Ensifer adhaerens, Enterococcus lactis, Heyndrickxia faecalis, Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, Microbacterium foliorum and Papiliotrema terrestris and 4 TUs were assessed for the first time: Listeria innocua, Pseudomonas protegens, Lactococcus cremoris (new species, previously a subspecies, which was part of the QPS species Lactococcus lactis) and Companilactobacillus pabuli (new species ‘split’ of a previous QPS species Companilactobacillus farciminis). L. cremoris, H. faecalis and C. pabuli are recommended for the QPS list, E. adhaerens also but only for production purposes. B. thuringiensis, E. lactis, P. protegens and L. innocua are not recommended for the QPS list due to safety concerns. B. thuringiensis is excluded from further QPS assessment. M. foliorum, P. terrestris and H. denitrificans are not recommended for the QPS list due to the limited body of knowledge.

SUMMARY

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asked the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) to deliver a Scientific Opinion on the maintenance of the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) list. The QPS list contains microorganisms, intentionally added to food and feed, which have received QPS status. The request included three specific tasks as mentioned in the Terms of Reference (ToR).

The QPS process was developed to provide a harmonised safety assessment approach to support EFSA Scientific Panels and Units. This process assesses the taxonomic identity, body of relevant knowledge and safety of microorganisms.

Safety concerns that are identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, if possible, confirmed at strain or product level, reflected as ‘qualifications’ that should be assessed at the strain level by EFSA's Scientific Panels. A generic qualification applies for all QPS bacterial TUs, ‘the strains should not harbour any acquired resistance genes to therapeutic antimicrobials’ (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2023).

Every 3 years, a QPS opinion is published summarising the results of the Panel Statements published in that period. The Opinion also updates the QPS approach considering developments in microbial methodology, new scientific insights and new microbial applications in the food chain.

The list of microorganisms is maintained and re‐evaluated approximately every 6 months in a BIOHAZ Panel Statement. The Panel Statement also includes the evaluation of newly notified microorganisms to EFSA in the context of technical dossiers for safety assessment, within the preceding 6‐months.

The first ToR requires ongoing updates of the list of microorganisms notified to EFSA, in the context of a technical dossier for safety assessment. The list ‘Microbiological agents as notified to EFSA’ (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607183) was updated with the notifications received between October 2025 and March 2026 (inclusive). Within this period, 99 notifications were received by EFSA, of which 47 were proposed for use as feed additives, 32 as food enzymes, food additives and flavourings, 5 as novel foods, 15 as plant protection products and none as food contact materials. The new notifications received within that period are included in the current Statement (see Appendix G).

The second ToR concerns the revision of the TUs previously recommended for the QPS list and their qualifications. At the same time, the QPS TUs taxonomic nomenclature of bacteria, yeasts, algae, protists and viruses are being verified every 6 months against their respective authoritative databases to ensure their accuracy for each Panel Statement. No changes were identified for this period.

For the revision of the QPS list TUs and their qualifications, articles published from July to December 2025 were assessed. The articles were retrieved and assessed through an extensive literature search (ELS) protocol available in Appendix B (see https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607188) and the search strategies in Appendix C (see https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607192). The ELS launched for this Panel Statement included any updated names/synonyms as keywords found with the verification described above. No new information was found that would affect the QPS status or qualifications for the TUs on the QPS list.

The third ToR requires a (re)assessment of new TUs notified to EFSA, for their suitability for inclusion in the updated QPS list at the Knowledge Junction in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1146566, Appendix F). ¹

During the current period, 99 notifications were received. Of these, 85 were not evaluated for the following reasons: 30 notifications involved microorganisms excluded from QPS evaluation (22 filamentous fungi, 6 Escherichia coli and 2 streptomyces), and 55 were related to TUs that already have QPS status and did not require further evaluation. Of the other 14 notifications, corresponding to 11 TUs, 7 were already assessed in the previous QPS 3‐years cycle and not recommended for the QPS list (Bacillus thuringiensis, Ensifer adhaerens, Enterococcus lactis, Heyndrickxia faecalis, Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, Microbacterium foliorum and Papiliotrema terrestris). The four TUs assessed for the first time in this Statement are Companilactobacillus pabuli (new species ‘split’ of a previous QPS species Companilactobacillus farciminis), Lactococcus cremoris (new species, previously a subspecies, which was part of the QPS species Lactococcus lactis), Listeria innocua and Pseudomonas protegens.

The following conclusions were drawn:

• Bacillus thuringiensis remains not recommended for inclusion in the QPS list due to safety concerns, confirming the conclusion of the previous assessment. B. thuringiensis is excluded from further QPS assessment.

• Ensifer adhaerens is recommended for the QPS list for production purposes.

• Enterococcus lactis remains not recommended for the QPS status due to insufficient information on safety.

• Heyndrickxia faecalis is recommended for the QPS list.

• Hyphomicrobium denitrificans remains not recommended for the QPS list due to a limited body of knowledge.

• Microbacterium foliorum remains not recommended for the QPS list due to a limited body of knowledge.

• Papiliotrema terrestris remains not recommended for the QPS list due to the limited body of knowledge.

• Companilactobacillus pabuli is recommended for the QPS list.

• Lactococcus cremoris is recommended for the QPS list.

• Listeria innocua is not recommended for the QPS list due to potential safety concerns.

• Pseudomonas protegens is not recommended for the QPS list due to safety concerns.

1. INTRODUCTION

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed by the EFSA Scientific Committee to provide a generic concept for risk assessment within the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for microorganisms intentionally introduced into the food and feed chains, in support of the respective Scientific Panels and Units in the context of market authorisations for their use in food and feed and the requirement for a safety assessment by EFSA (EFSA, 2007; Herman et al., 2019). The list, first established in 2007, has been continuously revised and updated. A Panel Statement is published approximately every 6 months. These Panel Statements include the results of the assessment of relevant new scientific articles related to the taxonomic units (TUs) with QPS status. They also contain the assessment of newly submitted TUs to the EFSA Units on Feed and Contaminants (FEEDCO), Food Ingredients and Packaging (FIP), Nutrition and Food Innovation (NIF), and Pesticides Peer Review (PREV). Every 3 years, a QPS opinion is published summarising the results of the Panel Statements published in that period.

1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor

A wide variety of microorganisms are intentionally added at different stages to the food and feed chains. In the context of applications for market authorisation, EFSA is requested to assess the safety of microorganisms when used either directly or as sources of food and feed additives, food enzymes, food flavourings, novel foods and plant protection products.

EFSA's work on QPS activities began in 2004, when the Scientific Committee issued a Scientific opinion in continuation of the 2003 working document ‘On a generic approach to the safety assessment of microorganisms used in feed/food and feed/food production’ prepared by a working group consisting of members of the former Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition, the Scientific Committee on Food and the Scientific Committee on Plants of the European Commission. ² The document, made available for public consultation, proposed the introduction of the concept of Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS), to be applied to selected groups of microorganisms. Microorganisms not considered suitable for QPS status would remain subject to a full safety assessment. EFSA management asked its Scientific Committee to consider whether the QPS approach could be applied to the safety assessment of microorganisms across the various EFSA Scientific Panels. In doing so, the Committee was required to take into account the response of stakeholders to the QPS approach. In its 2005 Opinion (EFSA, 2005), the Scientific Committee concluded that the QPS approach could provide a generic assessment system that could be applied to all requests received by EFSA for the safety assessments of microorganisms deliberately introduced into the food and feed chains. Its introduction was intended to improve transparency and ensure consistency in the approach used across the EFSA Panels. Applications involving a TU belonging to a species that falls within a QPS group do not require a full safety assessment.

Several TUs (usually species for bacteria, protists/microalgae and yeasts; families for viruses) have been included in the QPS list, either following notifications to EFSA, or proposals made initially by stakeholders during a public consultation in 2005, even if they were not yet notified to EFSA (EFSA, 2005). The EFSA Scientific Committee reviewed the range and numbers of microorganisms likely to be the subject of an EFSA Opinion and, in 2007, published a list of microorganisms recommended for the QPS list.

In their 2007 Opinion (EFSA, 2007), the Scientific Committee recommended that the QPS approach should provide a generic concept to prioritise and to harmonise safety risk assessment of microorganisms intentionally introduced into the food and feed chains, in support of the respective Scientific Panels and EFSA Units in the frame of the market authorisations for their use in the food and feed chains. The same Committee recognised that there would have to be continuing provision for reviewing and modifying the QPS list and, in line with this recommendation, the EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) took the prime responsibility for this and started reviewing annually the existing QPS list. In 2008, the first annual QPS update was published (EFSA, 2008).

In 2014, the BIOHAZ Panel, in consultation with the Scientific Committee, decided to change the revision procedure; the overall assessment of the TUs previously recommended for the QPS list (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013) was no longer carried out annually but over a 3‐year period. From 2017, the search and revision of the possible safety concerns linked to those TUs began instead to be carried out every 6 months through extensive literature searches (ELS). For instance, the update of the 2013 QPS list (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013) was done in 2016 (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2017). From 2016 on, the QPS list (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1146566) and the list of notifications to EFSA (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607183) are constantly updated, independently from the QPS Opinion, and are available at the Knowledge Junction in Zenodo. From 2016, the QPS opinion summarises the main results of the 3‐year ELS on the QPS TUs, together with an update of the process for granting QPS status. In the meantime, every 6 months a Panel Statement, compiling the assessments for a QPS status of the microorganisms notified to EFSA requested by the Feed and Contaminants (FEEDCO) Unit, the Food Ingredients and Packaging (FIP) Unit, the Nutrition and Food Innovation (NIF) Unit, the Pesticides Peer Review (PREV) Unit ³ , as well as the summary of each 6‐month ELS exercise, has been produced and published. Each QPS Panel Statement contains the evaluations of the new notifications for microorganisms submitted for possible QPS status. It also contains the result of a standardised ELS performed every 6 months regarding possible new safety concerns related to the TUs already included in the QPS list. The data identified are used to inform decisions on whether any TU may or may not remain on the QPS list, and whether any qualifications need to be revised.

Establishing a QPS status is based on 4 pillars: [1] the taxonomic unit (TU) for which QPS is sought (‘taxonomic identification’); [2] whether sufficient relevant information is available about the proposed TU to conclude on human/animal exposure via food/feed (‘body of knowledge’); [3] whether the TU proposed contains known ‘safety concerns’ and, finally, [4] the intended end use (‘intended use’). If a hazard related to a TU is identified, which can be tested at the strain or product level, a ‘qualification’ to exclude that hazard may be established and added. The subject of these qualifications for the microbial strain under investigation is evaluated by the EFSA Unit to which the application dossier has been allocated. Absence of acquired genes coding for resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials for humans and animals is a generic qualification for all bacterial TUs; the absence of antimycotic resistance should be proven if the pertinent yeasts are to be used as viable organisms in the food and/or feed chains. The qualification ‘for production purpose only’ implies the absence of viable cells of the production organism in the final product and can also be applied to food and feed products based on microbial biomass (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020a).

Because the QPS evaluation is, after its initial creation, only triggered through an application dossier notified to EFSA, the QPS list is not exhaustive.

In summary, the QPS evaluation provides a safety assessment approach for use within EFSA that covers safety concerns for humans, production animals and the environment. In the QPS concept, a safety assessment of a defined TU is performed independently of the legal framework under which the application is made in the course of an authorisation process. Although general human safety is part of the evaluation, specific issues relating to type and level of exposure of users handling the product (e.g. dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion) are not addressed. In the case of Genetically Modified Microorganisms (GMMs) for which the species of the recipient strain qualifies for the QPS status, and for which the genetic modification does not give rise to safety concerns, the QPS approach can be extended to genetically modified production strains (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2018). The assessment of potential allergenic microbial residual components is beyond the QPS remit; however, it is reported if science‐based evidence is available for a microbial species. These aspects are separately assessed, where applicable, by the EFSA Panel responsible for assessing the application.

The lowest TU for which the QPS status is granted is the species level for bacteria, yeasts, bacteriophages ⁴ and protists/algae, and family for non‐bacterial viruses.

Filamentous fungi, streptomycetes, oomycetes, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020a) Clostridium butyricum (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020b), Klebsiella pneumoniae (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2024a), Actinomadura roseirufa and Burkholderia stagnalis (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2024b) are excluded from the QPS assessments based on an ambiguous taxonomic position or the possession of potentially harmful traits by some strains of the TU and therefore, require a specific assessment for each strain for which an application is made.

The Terms of Reference are as follows:

ToR 1: Keep updated the list of microorganisms being notified in the context of a technical dossier to EFSA Units such as Feed and Contaminants (FEEDCO), Pesticides Peer Review (PREV), Food Ingredients and Packaging (FIP) and Nutrition and Food Innovation (NIF), ⁵ for intentional use directly or as sources of food and feed additives, food enzymes and plant protection products (PPPs) and Genetically Modified Microorganisms (GMO) for safety assessment.

ToR 2: Review taxonomic units previously recommended for the QPS list and their qualifications when new information has become available. The latter is based on an update of the ELS aiming to verify whether any new safety concern has arisen that could require the removal of a taxonomic unit from the list, and to verify if the qualifications still effectively exclude safety concerns.

ToR 3: (Re) assess the suitability of new taxonomic units notified to EFSA for their inclusion in the QPS list. These microorganisms are notified to EFSA in the context of technical dossiers for safety assessment and trigger a QPS assessment. ⁶

2. DATA AND METHODOLOGIES

2.1. Data

In reply to ToR 3, (re)assessment of the suitability of TUs notified within the period covered by this Statement (between October 2025 and March 2026 (inclusive)) was carried out. The literature review considered the information on taxonomy, the body of knowledge, the potential safety concerns related to human and animal health and to the environment (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2023) for each TU. The environmental risk assessment of a TU used in PPPs, following the legal requirements, is not included in the QPS assessment. This assessment is carried out by the Pesticide Peer Review (PPR) Unit, based on the risk assessment in the application.

Relevant databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, CAB Abstracts or Food Science Technology Abstracts (FSTA) and Scopus, were searched, based on the judgement of the experts. More details on the search strategy, search keys and approach for each of the assessments are described in Appendix A.

Only valid TUs covered by the relevant international committees on the nomenclature for microorganisms are considered for the QPS assessment (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2023). In order to validate this Panel Statement, the TUs of bacteria, yeasts, algae, protists and viruses present in the QPS list were checked against their respective authoritative databases to verify the correctness of the names and completeness of synonyms (see EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2024b for more details). The results of this exercise can be found in Section 3.3.

2.2. Methodologies

2.2.1. Evaluation of a QPS recommendation for taxonomic units notified to EFSA

In response to ToR 1, the EFSA Units were asked to update the list of microorganisms notified to EFSA. A total of 99 notifications were received between October 2025 and March 2026 (inclusive), of which 47 were for evaluation for use as feed additives, 32 for use as food enzymes, food additives and flavourings, 5 as novel foods, 15 as plant protection product and none as food contact materials (Table 1). There were 4 notifications of applications with bacteriophages which were received within this period. However, it was decided to postpone the assessment for the next Panel statement part 25 due to a delayed inclusion of a new expert with regard to bacteriophages within the QPS working group.

TABLE 1.

Notifications received by EFSA, per risk assessment area and by microbiological group, between October 2025 and March 2026.

Risk assessment area	Not evaluated in this Statement		Evaluated in this Statement b	Total
Microbiological group	Already QPS	Excluded in QPS a
Feed additives	32	8	7	47
Bacteria	27	4	7	38
Filamentous fungi		4		4
Yeasts	5			5
Novel foods	2	2	1	5
Microalgae				0
Bacteria	2	1	1	4
Filamentous fungi		1		1
Protists				0
Yeasts				0
Plant protection products	5	6	4	15
Bacteria	4	1	3	8
Filamentous fungi		5		5
Yeasts			1	1
Bacteriophages
Viruses	1			1
Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	16	14	2	32
Bacteria	12	2	2	16
Filamentous fungi		12		12
Yeasts	4			4
Bacteriophages
Genetically modified organism	0	0	0	0
Bacteria				0
Food contact materials	0	0	0	0
Bacteria				0
Total	55	30	14	99

Abbreviation: QPS, qualified presumption of safety.

^a The number includes 22 notifications of filamentous fungi, 6 of Escherichia coli and 2 of streptomyces, all excluded from QPS evaluation.

^b 14 notifications corresponding to 11 TUs, of which 7 already assessed in the previous QPS 3‐years cycle (Bacillus thuringiensis, Ensifer adhaerens, Enterococcus lactis, Heyndrickxia faecalis, Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, Microbacterium foliorum and Papiliotrema terrestris) and the other 4 TUs assessed for the first time in this Statement (Companilactobacillus pabuli, Lactococcus cremoris, Listeria innocua and Pseudomonas protegens).

In response to ToR 3, 85 notifications were not included in the current QPS evaluation for the following reasons: 30 notifications were related to microorganisms generally excluded from QPS evaluation (22 of filamentous fungi, 6 of Escherichia coli and 2 streptomyces) and 55 were related to TUs that already had QPS status and did not require further evaluation. Of the remaining 14 notifications, corresponding to 11 TUs, 7 were already assessed in the previous QPS 3‐years cycle (Bacillus thuringiensis, Ensifer adhaerens, Enterococcus lactis, Heyndrickxia faecalis, Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, Microbacterium foliorum and Papiliotrema terrestris). The four TUs assessed for the first time in this Statement are Listeria innocua, Pseudomonas protegens, Lactococcus cremoris (new species, previously a subspecies, which was part of a QPS status species – Lactococcus lactis) and Companilactobacillus pabuli, (new species ‘split’ of a previous QPS TU – Companilactobacillus farciminis (synonym Lactobacillus farciminis)).

2.2.2. Monitoring of new safety concerns related to species with QPS status

In reply to ToR 2, concerning the revision of the TUs previously recommended for the QPS list and their qualifications, an ELS was conducted as described in Appendix B – ELS protocol, see https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607188 and in Appendix C – Search strategies, see https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607192.

The aim of the ELS was to identify any publicly available scientific studies reporting on safety concerns for humans, production animals, the environment, AMR or genotoxicity caused by QPS organisms since the previous QPS review that would require a change in the QPS status of the TU. The current ELS covered the scientific articles published from July to December 2025. The searches were designed to retrieve papers indexed in the databases during the review period. However, due to issues with the indexation of old records in the database platform, the papers retrieved were additionally filtered to papers published from 2022. Any papers not captured in the previous cycle was captured in this cycle. The ELS was done in DistillerSR starting with a screening based on the title and the abstract followed by evaluation of the full texts of the selected papers.

The Title and Abstract screening step of this Panel Statement was performed by a Classifier in DistillerSR. Before applying the Classifier an assessment of its performance was done. The specificity of the Classifier was 0.99, while its sensitivity was > 0.98 when considering the results of the process up to the Article Evaluation step. Taking into account this background, it was considered safe to use the Classifier as the only reviewer at Title and Abstract screening.

The taxonomic nomenclature of QPS TUs including bacteria, yeasts, algae, protists and viruses was verified against their respective authoritative databases to ensure their accuracy and the QPS list has been updated (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2024b) (see Section 3.3). Before conducting searches for the current ELS, the correctness of names was checked. The ELS launched for this Panel Statement incorporated updated names/synonyms as keywords.

For case reports of human infections or intoxications, important additional information includes whether adverse effects were limited to individuals with conditions that increase susceptibility to opportunistic infections, for example immunosuppression. Whether transmission occurred through ingestion of food, intake of probiotics or other routes (e.g. medical devices), was also included when described. Studies indicating the presence of virulence factors (e.g. toxins and enzymes that may contribute to the pathogenicity of the microorganism) in the TU are also reported as relevant when identifying potential safety concerns.

Several of the QPS‐TUs are sporadically reported as causing infections in individuals with recognised predisposing conditions for opportunistic infections such as cardiovascular conditions associated with endocarditis, various medical devices such as catheters, people in the lower or upper age spectrum, or conditions that impair immune function. Examples of these conditions are patients subjected to transplants, undergoing cancer therapy, suffering from physical trauma or tissue damage, or HIV patients. Moreover, gastrointestinal tract‐related conditions with, for example, mucosal impairment and/or proton pump inhibitors can also be predisposing factors for infection. Previous use of the microorganisms being assessed as food supplements/probiotics for humans was reported in many of these cases. The QPS assessment takes into consideration these reports, extracting relevant information where justified.

The ELS search terms for outcomes were thoroughly revised at the beginning of this QPS 3 years cycle (2026–2029) to incorporate lessons learned from previous cycles. New search terms were included, such as those to identify outbreaks, and steps were taken to standardise outcome usage across the different taxonomic units. The final searches are available in Appendix C.

After removal of duplicates, 11,332 records proceeded to the title and abstract screening step, resulting in the exclusion of 11,149 records. The remaining 183 records were deemed eligible for article evaluation step (full text), of which 27 were considered to report a potential safety concern and therefore further analysed.

The flow of records from their identification by the different search strategies (as reported in Appendix C) to their consideration as potentially relevant scientific articles for QPS is shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Flow of records by search strategy step.

Species	Title/abstract screening step	Article evaluation step (screening for potential relevance)	Article evaluation step (identification of potential safety concerns)
	Number of articles retrieved
Bacteria (total)	807	100	11
Bacillus spp.	3393	36	1
Geobacillus stearothermophilus	0	0	0
Bifidobacterium spp.	530	6	1
Carnobacterium divergens	5	1	1
Corynebacterium glutamicum	2	0	0
Gram negatives a	406 b	8	3
Lactobacilli	2870	39	3
Lactococcus lactis	271	4	1
Leuconostoc spp.	126	4	1
Microbacterium imperiale	0	0	0
Oenococcus oeni	31	0	0
Pasteuria nishizawae	1	0	0
Clostridium tyrobutyricum	20	0	0
Pediococcus spp.	291	2	0
Propionibacterium spp.	36	0	0
Streptococcus thermophilus	96	0	0
Viruses (total)	927	9	0
Alphaflexiviridae/Potyviridae	664	8	0
Baculoviridae	263	1	0
Yeasts	1901	74	16
Protists	14	0	0
Microalgae	412	0	0
Total	11,332	183	27
Excluded	11,149	156

^a Gluconobacter oxydans/Xanthomonas campestris/Cupriavidus necator/Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans/Agrobacterium radiobacter/Vibrio natrigens.

^b Gluconobacter oxydans (19)/Xanthomonas campestris (95)/Cupriavidus necator (76)/Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans (0)/Agrobacterium radiobacter (195)/Vibrio natrigens (21).

3. ASSESSMENT

3.1. Taxonomic units evaluated during the previous QPS 3‐years period and re‐evaluated in the current statement

For the TUs already assessed during the previous QPS 3‐years cycle (2023–2025), a new QPS status assessment is made if notified within this new 3‐years cycle (2026–2028) because new data and literature may have been published since then that may change the previous conclusions.

3.1.1. Bacteria

Bacillus thuringiensis

Bacillus thuringiensis was considered not suitable for QPS status due to safety concerns, based on the scientific information available up to July 2024 (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2025).

Updated extensive literature search (ELS)

An extensive literature search (ELS) was performed using the search terms applied for the Bacillus species with a QPS status, complemented with additional key‐terms reflecting the common end use of B. thuringiensis as a microbial plant protection product (see Appendix A.1). Publications from July 2024 to December 2025 were searched. A total of 1084 references were identified. After Title and Abstract screening, 19 articles were selected for full text evaluation. In addition, three relevant references not retrieved by the ELS were included based on expert judgement, following manual checking of the literature (Felten et al., 2026; Mozhaitseva et al., 2026; Tresch et al., 2025) (see Appendix E).

Overall, six papers were considered relevant for the present QPS assessment update.

Identity

Bacillus thuringiensis is a species with standing in nomenclature belonging to B. cereus sensu lato (s.l.), also known as the Bacillus cereus group. It consists of Gram‐positive, spore‐forming bacteria. Suliman et al. (2025) confirmed previous results (Caroll et al., 2020) and showed that genomic based approaches such as average nucleotide identity (ANI) do not delineate B. thuringiensis as a distinct genomic species. Classification of B. thuringiensis relies on the ability of the strains to produce insecticidal crystal proteins coded by the Cry toxin genes which have spread among B. cereus group strains via natural transformation of plasmids between different Bacillus species (Wang et al., 2025).

In the QPS assessment, B. thuringiensis strains are defined as strains belonging to the B. cereus s.l. that have been identified through microscopic analysis of the presence of insecticidal crystals. Additional molecular identification approaches complement this phenotypic analysis, allowing the identification of strains to the level of B. thuringiensis strains used as plant protection product (Tresh et al., 2025, Felten et al., 2026).

Body of knowledge

During the period covered by the present ELS, several studies reported the detection of B. thuringiensis or closely related B. cereus group strains in food products.

Tresch et al. (2025) detected B. thuringiensis strains matching with B. thuringiensis serovar Kurstaki strains SA‐11 and ABTS‐351 (used as commercial plant protection products) in three samples of frozen berries collected at retail level in Switzerland. They were found among the 12 samples positive for B. cereus group members present in about 2.0–3.41 log₁₀ CFU/g. They were characterised by WGS analysis with 1 SNP (for SA‐11 strain) or 2 SNPs (for ABTS‐351 strain). The strains were recovered from raspberries from Morocco and a berry mix from Spain. The three strains contain genes coding for hblA, hblB, hblC, hblD and for nheA, nheB, nheC and cytK‐2.

B. thuringiensis was detected in two of 100 Swiss retail sesame samples (Barmettler et al., 2025). In unpeeled sesame seeds from Egypt 300 CFU/g were detected and in hummus garlic and pepperoncini produced in Switzerland 100 CFU/g. The strain in the hummus garlic and pepperoncini differs only with ≤ 2 SNPs from the B. thuringiensis serovar Kurstaki SA‐11 and ABTS‐351.

Safety concerns

The new evidence retrieved during the current mandate does not change previously identified safety concerns related to B. thuringiensis.

Mozhaitseva et al. (2026) found B. thuringiensis serovar Kurstaki strains, a serovar frequently used as plant protection product, among isolates collected during foodborne outbreak investigations in France between 2004 and 2023. These strains were predominantly associated with vegetable‐based salads. They estimated that strains from B. thuringiensis serovar Kurstaki accounted for approximately 7.6% of the foodborne outbreaks associated with B. cereus s.l.

Van Laere et al. (2026) analysed four commercial B. thuringiensis Kurstaki HD‐1 preparations by WGS and, using NDARO ⁷ screening thresholds (> 80% identity/coverage), reported six putative AMR determinants. As no phenotypic susceptibility testing was provided and some hits showed substitutions/truncations, the functional relevance of these determinants is uncertain.

Conclusion

Bacillus thuringiensis remains not recommended for inclusion in the QPS list due to safety concerns, confirming the conclusion of the previous assessment.

It was concluded to exclude B. thuringiensis from further QPS assessment.

Ensifer adhaerens

Ensifer adhaerens was already evaluated (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2011, 2022a, 2022b, 2024a), as not recommended for QPS status due to lack of body of knowledge.

Identity

Ensifer adhaerens is a valid taxonomic unit and consists of Gram‐negative bacteria. Sinorhizobium adhaerens is not a validated synonym (Casida Jr, 1982; Willems et al., 2003). Other names as Sinorhizobium morelense (Wang et al., 2002) and Ensifer morelensis (Oren & Garrity, 2015; Wang et al., 2013) are previously used names also without nomenclature validation. All synonyms were included in the literature searches.

Body of knowledge

Ensifer adhaerens is a rhizosphere inhabiting bacterium with the ability to genetically transform several plant species (Rudder et al., 2014). E. adhaerens strains have been isolated in relation to N₂ fixing (Katiyar et al., 2021) and plant growth promotion potential (Zhumakayev et al., 2021, Hernández‐Álvarez et al., 2022, Newberger et al., 2023, Baliyan et al., 2022). Biodegradation potential (Castronovo et al., 2023; Falade et al., 2017; Mesa et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2021), exopolysaccharide production (Alvarez et al., 2018) and mineral‐weathering capacity (Wang et al., 2016) have been reported. The safety of vitamin B12 produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens strains was confirmed in the EFSA opinions (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2020, 2023, 2024). Conditions for increased vitamin B12 production were reported (Li et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025).

Safety

No article mentioned human or animal safety concerns.

Conclusion

Ensifer adhaerens is recommended for the QPS list for production purposes.

Enterococcus lactis synonym Enterococcus xinjiangensis

Enterococcus lactis was already assessed (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2022a, 2022b) as not recommended for the QPS status due to insufficient information on safety.

Identity

Enterococcus lactis consists of Gram‐positive non‐sporulating bacteria, characterised by their cocci shape. E. lactis form a distinct phylogenetic cluster from E. faecium based on WGS analysis (Belloso Daza et al., 2021) and are not displaying a separate clustering based on their isolation source from foods, humans, animals or environment (Choi et al., 2024). Recent data further support the taxonomic separation of E. lactis from E. faecium (Ross et al., 2025).

Body of knowledge

Enterococcus lactis strains are commonly found in human and animal guts, as well as different ecosystems of the food chain, and have been reported for their probiotic potential (Ahmed et al., 2023; Almeida‐Santos et al., 2025; Alsaud et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2025; Fu et al., 2022). The antibacterial activity of several strains was documented and attributed to bacteriocins (Kotakonda & Marappan, 2025; Oliveira et al., 2024). Distinct bacteriocin producing genes were discovered in E. lactis compared to E. faecium strains (Tedim et al., 2024).

Safety concerns

The studies by Ross et al., 2025 and Chen et al., 2025, in agreement with previous reports, found that E. lactis generally harbours less antimicrobial resistance genes than E. faecium: lower resistance rates for most tested antimicrobials, markedly lower MDR frequency and lower numbers of ARGs and mobile genetic elements.

Regarding the virulome, Chen et al. (2025) reported no significant differences between E. lactis and E. faecium in virulence‐gene profiles, based on the Virulence Factors Database (VFDB), ⁸ including genes related to adhesion, immune modulation, biofilm formation and exotoxin production.

Ross et al. (2025), using a curated list of virulence factors (Al Rubaye et al., 2021), reported differences in virulence‐gene repertoire between E. lactis and E. faecium, similarly to previous studies. However, they did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude the absence of clinically relevant pathogenic potential in all E. lactis isolates.

Cerioli et al. (2025) reported the isolation of a E. lactis strain from milk of a cow with sub clinical mastitis without confirming the strain as the causative agent.

At present, there are still insufficient data on the ability of E. lactis to cause infections in susceptible humans and on the correlation between virulence genes and pathogenicity.

Conclusion

Enterococcus lactis remains not recommended for the QPS status due to insufficient information on safety.

Heyndrickxia faecalis (previously Weizmannia faecalis)

Heyndrickxia faecalis was already evaluated (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2024a) and was not recommended for the QPS list due to the limited body of knowledge about its occurrence in the food and/or feed chains.

Identity

Heyndrickxia faecalis, a species with standing in nomenclature, is the homotypic synonym of Weizmannia faecalis (Kieu et al., 2022; Narsing Rao et al., 2023). Weizmannia faecalis was established as a new species (Kieu et al., 2022) on the basis of a ANI value of 95.03% with the type strain of Weizmannia coagulans (homotypic synonym of Bacillus coagulans).

The type strain (Marseille‐P8953^T) was isolated from the faeces of a healthy subject and consisted of Gram‐positive, spore‐forming, motile rod‐shaped cells.

Body of knowledge

Two articles describing the use of H. faecalis as beneficial microorganism were identified. The first one, describing a combination of B. subtilis and H. faecalis to study the potential for symptom management in irritable bowel syndrome in humans (Sorensen et al., 2026). The second to assess the effects of a probiotic combination containing H. faecalis and B. licheniformis on broiler performance, carcass characteristics and intestinal health (Dotas et al., 2026). The H. faecalis strains in these papers were previously identified as Bacillus coagulans which is in the QPS list.

In addition, taking into account the close genetic relatedness with B. coagulans, the body of knowledge of B. coagulans is considered for the assessment of H. faecalis.

Safety concerns

No information on safety was published in this period.

Conclusion

Heyndrickxia faecalis is recommended for the QPS list.

Hyphomicrobium denitrificans

Hyphomicrobium denitrificans was already assessed (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2017) and was not recommended for QPS status due to a limited body of knowledge.

Identity

Hyphomicrobium dentrificans is a Gram‐negative, non‐spore forming bacterial species belonging to the class Alphaproteobacteria. It is a species with standing in nomenclature (Anonymous, 1995) and described by Urakami et al. (1995). Phylogenetic analysis places the species within the genus Hyphomicrobium (Rainey et al., 1998).

Body of knowledge

Hyphomicrobium denitrificans is a common inhabitant of freshwater reservoirs, brackish water, seawater, sewage treatment plants and soil and its denitrifying ability removes nitrate from drinking water and sewage treatment plants (Holm et al., 1996; Layton et al., 2000). The denitrification enzymes have been characterised (Deligeer et al., 2002; Yamaguchi et al., 2003, 2004), and genetic and physiological aspects of this denitrification have been clarified (Martineau et al., 2015; Meiberg et al., 1980).

Hyphomicrobium denitrificans are facultatively methylotrophic bacteria with the ability to utilise methanol, oxidising thiosulfate as an additional electron donor (Li et al., 2025). H. denitrificans has been shown to produce pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ), a natural antioxidant with diverse applications in food and pharmaceutical industries (Liu et al., 2020). Mutation strategies were described to obtain mutants with higher PQQ production (Liang et al., 2024). Coproduction of single cell protein and PQQ from molasses and biogas slurry was developed to produce alternative animal proteins (Zhu et al., 2025). EFSA evaluated pyrroloquinoline quinone disodium salt, a highly purified product, produced by a H. denitrificans strain as novel food and considered this product safe under the intended conditions of use (EFSA, 2017).

Safety concerns

No articles were found dealing with possible human or animal safety concerns.

Conclusion

Hyphomicrobium denitrificans remains not recommended for the QPS list due to a limited body of knowledge.

Microbacterium foliorum

Microbacterium foliorum was already assessed (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2019, 2022a, 2022b) and was not recommended for the QPS list due to a lack of body of knowledge for its occurrence in the food and feed chain.

Identity

Microbacterium foliorum consists of Gram‐positive motile, rod‐shaped bacteria. M. foliorum is a species with standing in nomenclature (Behrendt et al., 2001, emended by Nouioui et al., 2018). The species was established based on the phylogenetic analysis of Microbacterium spp. strains isolated from grasses and surface litter which could, at that time, not be identified at the species level based on conventional physiological and morphological tests.

Body of knowledge

Microbacterium foliorum is an endophyte with plant growth promotion properties (Bagnazari et al., 2025; Lumactud et al., 2016; Lumactud et al., 2017). Strains identified as M. foliorum were reported among the surface microbiota of cheeses, at levels reaching 10⁸ CFU/cm² and were suggested to contribute to aroma development during cheese ripening (Rea et al., 2007, Deetae et al., 2009). However, these studies predate current genome‐based taxonomic approaches, and species‐level identification may therefore be uncertain. M. foliorum has a positive effect on phytoremediation decreasing arsenic toxicity in plants (Alka et al., 2021).

Microbacterium foliorum is used to produce D‐allulose (An et al., 2019), a low‐calorie monosaccharide which is widely used as food ingredient.

Safety concern

Microbacterium foliorum has been associated with clinical samples. Laffineur et al. (2003) reported the isolation of 30 Microbacter spp. specimens ‘during the past decades’ one of which was classified as M. foliorum, with no further indication of its source or the conditions of the patient.

Strains of M. foliorum have been detected in clinical wound swabs (5 cases), pleural fluid (1) and blood (1) (Gneiding et al., 2008). In this study, only the origin of the samples was reported, with no indication of the patient's conditions or the procedures to which they were subjected.

Fu et al. (2022) studied the microbiological load of urban air dust by a metagenomic approach and found an association of M. foliorum with the occurrence of wheeze, rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis; a causal relationship was not investigated.

Killed and dried M. foliorum biomass showed no treatment‐related abnormalities in acute and subchronic toxicity studies in rodents. No mutagenicity or clastogenicity was observed in the in vitro assays performed (Kim et al., 2018). In addition, D‐allulose produced by M. foliorum was not associated with adverse effects in a 90‐day repeated oral toxicity test (An et al., 2019). However, these two studies do not fully address the safety of viable M. foliorum cells or their potential for persistence or opportunistic pathogenicity.

Conclusion

Microbacterium foliorum remains not recommended for the QPS list due to a limited body of knowledge.

3.1.2. Yeasts

Papiliotrema terrestris

Papiliotrema terrestris was already assessed (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2022a, 2022b) and was not recommended for the QPS status due to a limited body of knowledge.

Since 2022, only a few new articles have been published, most of which propose this species as a biocontrol agent for several plant pathogens (e.g. Castoria et al., 2021; Ruspi et al., 2024). Since the latest update until December 2024, Palmieri et al. (2024) used a strain of P. terrestris as a model organism in an outline for predicting the biosafety profile of biocontrol yeasts, and Viola et al. (2024) investigated various inocula combinations of Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Papiliotrema terrestris and Saccharomyces cerevisiae on dough fermentation and resulting bread characteristics.

Safety concerns

No articles were found dealing with possible human or animal safety concerns.

Conclusion

Papiliotrema terrestris remains not recommended for the QPS list due to the limited body of knowledge.

3.2. Taxonomic units evaluated for the first time

3.2.1. Bacteria

Companilactobacillus pabuli

Identity

Companilactobacillus pabuli consists of Gram‐positive, facultative anaerobic, non‐spore‐forming, rod‐shaped bacteria. It is a species with standing in nomenclature, described by Jung et al. (2021).

The species shares ANI values, calculated using the orthoANIu algorithm, below the accepted species delineation threshold with its closest related species: 92.93% with Companilactobacillus formosensis and 90.99% with Companilactobacillus farciminis. The taxonomic position of C. pabuli was confirmed using the WGS of three genomes available in the NCBI database (including the reference genome) running MoPS EFSA portal (https://mopsportal.efsa.europa.eu/). The 16S rRNA gene sequence of the type strain of C. pabuli exhibited high similarity to Companilactobacillus formosensis S215T (99.66%) and Companilactobacillus farciminis Rv4 naT (99.53%) (Jung et al., 2021). Companilactobacillus farciminis has the QPS status.

Body of knowledge

Companilactobacillus pabuli strains were isolated from total mixed fermentation feed in the Republic of Korea (Jung et al., 2019, 2021) and fermented fish (pla‐paeng‐daeng) in Thailand (Kingkaew et al., 2023). Cholesterol assimilation and immunomodulatory effects were reported.

Taking into account the close genetic relatedness with C. farciminis and C. formosensis, the body of knowledge of these species is also considered for the assessment of C. pabulis.

Safety concerns

No articles were found dealing with possible human or animal safety concerns. No virulence factors were identified in the three genomes available in the NCBI database using the bioinformatic MoPS tool (https://mopsportal.efsa.europa.eu/).

Conclusion

Companilactobacillus pabuli is recommended for the QPS list.

Lactococcus cremoris

Identity

Lactococcus cremoris is a validly published species with standing in nomenclature. It was originally described as Streptococcus cremoris by Orla‐Jensen in 1919. In 1982, based on DNA–DNA hybridisation studies (Garvie et al., 1982), it was reclassified as a subspecies of Streptococcus lactis, namely S. lactis subsp. cremoris. Following the establishment of the genus Lactococcus in 1985 (Schleifer et al., 1985), S. lactis subsp. cremoris was transferred to Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris. More recently, comparative genomic analyses supported the reestablishment of Lactococcus cremoris as a separate species (Li et al., 2019). This taxonomic revision was subsequently validated and approved by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP) in 2021. As a result, Lactococcus cremoris is currently recognised as a distinct species, while Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris is considered its homotypic synonym.

Body of knowledge

Lactococcus cremoris has a long, well‐documented history—spanning over a century—of safe use in dairy fermentations. Moreover, given the close taxonomic and functional relationship between L. lactis and L. cremoris, their history of safe use can be considered collectively, reflecting the extensive and shared application of both species in fermented dairy products.

Safety concerns

No safety concerns have been identified neither during the ELS exercise for the QPS list TUs, which is repeated every 6 months.

Conclusion

Lactococcus cremoris is recommended for the QPS list.

Listeria innocua

Identity

Listeria innocua is a Gram‐positive, non‐spore‐forming bacterium belonging to the genus Listeria and is a species with standing in nomenclature (Seeliger, 1981). The species epithet innocua means ‘harmless’, reflecting its general status as a non‐pathogenic species for humans and animals, in contrast to other members of the genus.

It is phylogenetically closely related to Listeria monocytogenes, sharing high genomic similarity, but most L. innocua strains lack the major virulence determinants associated with listeriosis in humans (Moura et all, 2019).

Body of knowledge

Listeria innocua is frequently isolated from food production environments alongside L. monocytogenes. The species is widely distributed in natural environments, food matrices and food processing environments. L. innocua is widely used as a surrogate organism for Listeria monocytogenes in process validation studies (Waite‐Cusic et al., 2011). In phage research, L. innocua is commonly used as a safe propagation host for isolation and amplification of lytic bacteriophages targeting L. monocytogenes (EFSA, 2016) and as a model organism for studying Listeria–phage interactions due to shared surface receptors and conserved cell wall structures (Zawiasa et al., 2025).

Safety concerns

Although L. innocua is generally considered as non‐pathogenic, rare cases of invasive infection have been reported (Gupta et al., 2024; Liao et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2026). Genomic analyses have also identified in some strains partial or complete virulence‐associated genes, including Listeria pathogenicity islands and internalin genes, some of which are functionally expressed (Johnson et al., 2004; Moreno et al., 2014; Moura et all, 2019; Gradovska et al., 2022, Nguyen et al., 2026).

Conclusion

Listeria innocua is not recommended for the QPS list due to potential safety concerns.

Pseudomonas protegens

Identity

Pseudomonas protegens is a Gram‐negative rod‐shaped non‐spore forming, bacterial species belonging to the class Gammaproteobacteria. It is a species with standing in nomenclature, initially described by Ramette et al. (2011).

Body of knowledge

Pseudomonas protegens is phylogenetically related to the Pseudomonas fluorescens complex, recognised for its biocontrol capabilities and versatile secondary metabolism (Dobrzyński & Jakubowska, 2025). It shows ability to suppress soil‐borne fungal and bacterial plant pathogens through the production of antimicrobial compounds, such as 2,4‐diacetylphloroglucinol (DAPG), orfamides (Ma et al., 2016), pyoluteorin and pyrrolnitrin (Ajijah et al., 2023; Andreolli et al., 2019; Dobrzyński & Jakubowska, 2025; Höfte, 2021; Huang et al., 2022; Ortega et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2025), as well as the FitD toxin, an insecticidal protein encoded by the gene cluster fit (Garrido‐Sanz et al., 2023; Hamze et al., 2023; Ruiu & Mura, 2021). Genomic studies have highlighted its metabolic biocontrol mechanisms, including genes dedicated to iron acquisition (siderophores), nitrogen fixation, biofilm formation, secondary metabolites and extracellular enzyme production (Ajijah et al., 2023; Dobrzyński & Jakubowska, 2025), as well as regulation of root‐colonising processes in the rhizosphere using extracellular signals that can affect biocontrol activity and plant‐microbe interactions (Takeuchi & Seo, 2025).

Safety concerns

Although no direct evidence of human pathogenicity has been identified, several determinants potentially associated with virulence or host interaction were identified by bioinformatic analysis on the type strain Pseudomonas protegens CHA0 genome using MoPS tool (https://mopsportal.efsa.europa.eu/). These included genes involved in hydrogen cyanide production (hcnABC), a type VI secretion system, alkaline metalloprotease (aprA) and the exolysin system (exlAB). Consistent with these findings, P. protegens is known to produces a range of bioactive secondary metabolites and toxins, including compounds with insecticidal and cytotoxic activity. These include 2,4‐diacetylphloroglucinol (DAPG), pyoluteorin, pyrrolnitrin, orfamides and the FitD insecticidal toxin, as cited in the body of knowledge. The implications of these metabolites for safety assessment remain insufficiently characterised. Moreover, Ruiu and Mura (2021) reported that P. protegens causes a dose‐dependent lethal infection in fly larvae by crossing the gut barrier, proliferating in the hemolymph and producing multiple virulence factors that collectively contribute to mortality.

Conclusion

Pseudomonas protegens is not recommended for the QPS list due to safety concerns.

3.3. Update of the QPS list related to taxonomic update

The taxonomic nomenclature of QPS TUs including bacteria, yeasts, algae, protists and viruses was verified against their respective authoritative databases to ensure their accuracy (BIOHAZ Panel, 2024b). During this period, no changes have been identified concerning the correct names and synonyms of the bacteria and yeasts QPS TUs.

3.4. Monitoring of new safety concerns related to organisms on the QPS list

The summaries of the evaluation regarding potential safety concerns for humans, animals or the environment based on scientific articles published since the previous ELS exercise as described in Appendices B and C with reference to the articles selected as potentially relevant for the QPS exercise (Appendix D) for each of the TUs or groups of TUs that are part of the QPS list (Appendix F), are presented below. The current ELS covered the scientific articles published from July to December 2025.

3.4.1. Gram‐positive non‐sporulating bacteria

Bifidobacterium spp.

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for QPS‐listed Bifidobacterium spp. (B. adolescentis, B. animalis, B. bifidum, B. breve and B. longum) provided 530 references. After title and abstract screening, 6 were selected for the full text inspection (see Appendix D for all references). From these, 5 did not describe safety concerns. One was considered relevant (Ng et al., 2025). The article reported the case of an elderly woman with diabetes mellitus and end‐stage renal failure, who developed polymicrobial emphysematous pyelonephritis involving Bifidobacterium breve and Klebsiella pneumoniae, recovered by tissue culture. No details are provided on the detection methodology (Ng et al., 2025).

Consequently, the QPS status of Bifidobacterium spp. remains unchanged.

Carnobacterium divergens

A search for potentially relevant scientific articles on C. divergens provided five references. From these, four did not describe safety concerns and one passed to the full text phase and was considered relevant (Barrientos‐Flores et al., 2025). The paper describes an unusual case of C. divergens isolation from deep soft tissue samples obtained from an immunocompetent patient, after an amputation due to a meat grinder injury. The patient was treated by antibiotics with clinical success.

Based on the available evidence as described above, the QPS status of Carnobacterium divergens is not changed.

Corynebacterium glutamicum

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant to the QPS evaluation of C. glutamicum provided 2 references. None of these articles passed to the full text phase. Consequently, the QPS status of Corynebacterium glutamicum remains unchanged.

Lactobacilli

A search of papers referring to any of the QPS species, formerly belonging to the genus Lactobacillus and in 2020 split into several new genera, provided 2870 references. After title and abstract screening, 39 were selected for the full text phase inspection (see Appendix D for all references). From these, 30 did not describe safety concerns, 3 were not in English, 3 were not related to lactobacilli QPS TUs. Three are describing a possible safety concern (Asede et al., 2025, Claros Ruiz et al., 2025, Rahim et al., 2025). The three papers described single cases involving Lactobacillus rhamnosus in blood culture of an immunocompetent man (Claros Ruiz et al., 2025), Limosilactobacillus mucosae in uncommon meningitis in a patient with recurrent CSF (cerebrospinal fluid) Leak Post‐craniotomy (Asede et al., 2025) and a bloodstream infection by Lactobacillus salivarius in a child with intestinal failure (Rahim et al., 2025). All studies suffered from methodological shortcomings or insufficiently described methods.

Based on the available evidence as described above, the status of any of the QPS species included in the group of lactobacilli is not changed.

Lactococcus lactis

The search for papers dealing with L. lactis associated with safety concerns provided 271 references. After title and abstract screening, four articles arrived at the full text phase, three did not describe a safety concern (see Appendix D for all references). Only one was considered to be relevant after full text inspection (Wang et al., 2025). It was indicated as the cause of mastitis but there are methodological problems linked to the in vitro test confirmation (relationship between the agent and mastitis).

Based on the available evidence as described above, the QPS status of Lactococcus lactis is not changed.

Leuconostoc spp.

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for the QPS evaluation of Leuconostoc QPS species (L. citreum, L. lactis, L. mesenteroides, L. pseudomesenteroides) provided 126 references. The analysis of their titles and abstracts left four articles for full text evaluation (see Appendix D for all references), but two were not dealing with safety concerns, one was not related to Leuconostoc QPS TUs and only one was dealing with safety concerns (Butt et al., 2025). The article contained a methodological limitation related to the identification procedure. Therefore, the information from the ELS did not lead to a change in the status of QPS‐listed Leuconostoc species.

Microbacterium imperiale

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for the QPS evaluation of M. Microbacterium imperiale provided no references. Consequently, the QPS status of Microbacterium imperiale is not changed.

Oenococcus oeni

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant to the QPS evaluation of O. oeni provided 31 references. Following title and abstract screening, no articles were selected for full text evaluation. Consequently, the QPS status of Oenococcus oeni remains unchanged.

Pediococcus spp.

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for the QPS evaluation of Pediococcus spp. provided 291 references. The title and abstract screening left two articles for the full text phase (see Appendix D for all references) but none was dealing with safety concerns. Consequently, the status of QPS‐listed Pediococcus spp. remains unchanged.

Propionibacterium spp.

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for the QPS evaluation of Propionibacterium spp. provided 36 references. Following the analysis of their titles and abstracts, no articles passed to the full article evaluation phase. Consequently, the status of QPS‐listed Propionibacterium spp. is not changed.

Streptococcus thermophilus

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for the QPS evaluation of S. thermophilus provided 96 references. Following the analysis of their titles and abstracts, no article passed to the full article evaluation phase. Consequently, the status of QPS‐listed Streptococcus thermophilus is not changed.

3.4.2. Gram‐positive spore‐forming bacteria

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for Bacillus spp., related species and Geobacillus stearothermophilus provided 3393 references.

Bacillus spp. and related species

A total of 3393 articles were found for Bacillus spp. and related species. Of the 36 scientific articles that passed to the full text phase for further analysis, 33 do not describe a safety concern (see Appendix D for all references), 2 were not in English and only 1 was reporting a possible safety concern (Sada et al., 2025). A retrospective Japanese hospital study identified B. subtilis among 1.5% of positive blood cultures, with most isolates classified as B. subtilis var. natto based on mutations in the bioF and bioW genes. Among these cases, 25 were considered true bacteremia and occurred mainly in elderly patients with significant underlying conditions. As fresh natto contains very high concentrations of viable B. subtilis var. natto, the authors hypothesised that ingestion may have contributed to bacteremia in susceptible individuals. However, current evidence does not demonstrate intrinsic pathogenicity of B. subtilis var. natto in the general population, and the observations are likely strongly influenced by host predisposition and comorbidities.

Through the ELS, no information was identified that would change the status of members of Bacillus spp. and related species included in the QPS list.

Geobacillus stearothermophilus

None of the 3393 articles that were found for Bacillus spp. and G. stearothermophilus were related to this later species. Consequently, the QPS status of Geobacillus stearothermophilus is not changed.

Pasteuria nishizawae

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for P. nishizawae provided 1 reference but was not selected for the full text analysis phase. Consequently, the QPS status of Pasteuria nishizawae is not changed.

Clostridium tyrobutyricum

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for C. tyrobutyricum provided 20 references. Following the analysis of its title and abstract, none was selected for the full text analysis phase. Consequently, the QPS status of Clostridium tyrobutyricum is not changed.

3.4.3. Gram‐negative bacteria

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant to the QPS evaluation of Gluconobacter oxidans, Xanthomonas campestris, Cupriavidus necator, Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans, Agrobacterium radiobacter and Vibrio natriegens provided in total 406 references. The analysis of the titles and abstracts left 8 articles to be checked at full text phase (see Appendix D for all references). Four do not describe a safety concern, one was not in English and three are reporting a possible safety concern for A. radiobacter (Abdulmaged et al., 2025, Tekeli, et al., 2025, Vanhoutte, et al., 2025).

Cupriavidus necator

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for C. necator provided 76 references. Following the analysis of their titles and abstract, none was selected for the full text analysis phase. Consequently, the QPS status of Cupriavidus necator is not changed.

Gluconobacter oxydans

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for G. oxydans provided 19 references. Following the analysis of their titles and abstracts, none was selected for the full text phase. Consequently, the QPS status of Gluconobacter oxydans is not changed.

Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for K. sucrofermentans provided no references. Consequently, the QPS status of Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans is not changed.

Xanthomonas campestris

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for X. campestris provided 95 references. Following the analysis of their titles and abstracts, none was selected for the full text phase. Consequently, the QPS status of Xanthomonas campestris is not changed.

Agrobacterium radiobacter synonym Rhizobium radiobacter

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for A. radiobacter provided 195 references. Following the analysis of their titles and abstracts, eight articles (see Appendix D for all references) were selected for the full text phase. Three articles described safety concerns (Abdulmaged et al., 2025, Tekeli, et al., 2025, Vanhoutte, et al., 2025) but they contained methodological issues in the identification procedure. Consequently, the QPS status of Agrobacterium radiobacter is not changed.

Vibrio natriegens

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for V. natriegens provided 21 references. Following the analysis of their titles and abstracts, none was selected for the full text phase. Consequently, the QPS status of Vibrio natriegens remains unchanged.

3.4.4. Yeasts

The ELS searches for potentially relevant scientific articles on the yeasts with QPS status provided 1901 references. After the title/abstract screening phase, 74 articles passed to the full article appraisal phase. Out of these, 42 are not related to safety concerns (see Appendix D for all references), 10 are not related to the QPS yeast group, 3 not in English and 3 not available, therefore, only 16 reported a possible safety concern. The 16 articles are cited and discussed below. For the species Hanseniaspora uvarum, Kluyveromyces lactis, Komagataella pastoris , Komagataella phaffi , Limtongozyma cylindracea , Ogataea angusta, Ogataea polymorpha , Saccharomyces bayanus , Saccharomyces pastorianus , Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Xanthophyllomyces dendrorhous and Zygosaccharomyces rouxii no safety concerns were reported. Consequently, the QPS status does not change for these species.

Cyberlindnera jadinii

The anamorph name of C. jadinii is Candida utilis. Synonyms of this species are Hansenula jadinii, Pichia jadinii and Lindnera jadinii.

Three papers on C. jadinii were related to safety concerns for humans. Singh et al. (2025) assessed prevalence, species distribution, clinical risk factors and antifungal susceptibility of yeast isolates from sepsis patients in intensive care units (ICUs) of a hospital in India. C. jadinii occurred at a very low frequency, however species identification was only by traditional methods and thus uncertain. One study reports the first recorded case of C. jadinii fungemia in a kidney transplant recipient (Patil et al. 2025), but there is no information on the methods used for the species identification. Lovo et al. (2025) characterised 31 clinical yeast isolates from hospitalised patients with nosocomial candidiasis in Brazil, of which one isolate was C. jadinii. Patients had various predisposing conditions but no specific information is given regarding the case with C. jadinii, except that the strain was isolated from sputum, could produce hemolysin and phospholipase, and was susceptible to amphotericin B and nystatin but resistant to three tested azoles.

These studies do not add any new information that would change the current QPS status of Cyberlindnera jadinii.

Debaryomyces hansenii

The anamorph name of D. hansenii is Candida famata. Synonyms of this species are Debaryozyma hansenii, Pichia hansenii, Torulaspora hansenii, Debaryomyces hansenii var. hansenii and Debaryomyces tyrocola var. hansenii.

Two papers on D. hansenii were related to safety concerns for humans. One study (Singh et al. 2025) reported prevalence, species distribution, clinical risk factors and antifungal susceptibility of yeasts isolated from sepsis patients in ICUs of a hospital in India. D. hansenii occurred at a very low frequency, however species identification was only by traditional methods and thus uncertain. Safari et al. (2025) characterised 136 yeast strains isolated from different organs of patients with suspected fungal infection in various high‐risk units across three tertiary care hospitals in Iran. Six isolates (4.4%) were D. hansenii. Patients had various underlying risk factors but no specific clinical data regarding the D. hansenii cases are presented.

The studies on Debaryomyces hansenii did not add any new information that would change the current QPS status of this species.

Kluyveromyces marxianus

The anamorph name of K. marxianus is Candida kefyr. Synonyms of this species are Dekkeromyces marxianus, Guilliermondella marxiana, Zygofabospora marxiana, Zygorenospora marxiana and Zygosaccharomyces marxianus.

Of the eight publications of K. marxianus selected in the period, only six address safety concerns and five of them had methodological problems with species identification. Unalan‐Altintop et al. (2025) performed a comparative study of different conventional yeast identification techniques, but none include molecular methods. Singh et al. (2025) also identified problems. The authors conducted a study on the prevalence of candidemia among patients with sepsis. They identified a very low frequency of C. utilis, C. famata and C. kefyr, but identification was limited to the use the conventional microbiological techniques and the Vitek‐2 system. Nadir et al. (2025) did a literature review analysing case reports involving infection with C. kefyr in transplantation patients, where the identification method was not considered. The study of Arsić Arsenijević et al. (2025) present identification problems (traditional methods plus MALDI‐TOF MS), and the patient has a risk factor. In this study the authors' analysed the vulvovaginal candidiasis in pregnant women and identified C. kefyr at a low percentage. Finally, Safari et al. (2025) identified 136 clinical samples by RFLP analysis of the ITS1 and ITS2 regions, and C. kefyr was isolated at a low frequency (2.9%).

The articles did not identify any information that would change the QPS status of Kluyveromyces marxianus.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

The anamorph form of S. cerevisiae is not described. An exceptional synonym of this species is Saccharomyces boulardii. Other synonyms are Mycokluyveria cerevisiae, Eutorulopsis cerevisiae, Eutorula cerevisiae and Kloeckera cerevisiae.

Two publications address safety concerns, and both present limitations regarding species identification. Turan et al. (2025) identified 196 isolates from urine and respiratory tract specimens of hospitalised patients in ICUs using MALDI‐TOF MS. The authors also analysed the antifungal susceptibility of the S. cerevisiae isolates, which showed low echinocandin MICs. As described for K. marxianus, Arsić Arsenijević et al. (2025) identified, by MALDI‐TOF MS, isolates from vulvovaginal candidiasis in pregnant women and reported S. cerevisiae at a low percentage (2.7%).

The literature update did not identify any information that would change the current QPS status of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Wickerhamomyces anomalus

The anamorph name of W. anomalus is Candida pelliculosa. Synonyms of this species are Endomyces anomalus, Pichia anomala, Willia anomala and Hansenula anomala.

Two papers on W. anomalus reported safety concerns for humans. A retrospective study identified 196 clinical yeasts from hospitals in Turkey, most of them from patients in ICUs (Turan et al. 2025). Isolates came mainly from urine and respiratory tract specimens. A low proportion (2 isolates, = 1%) were W. anomalus. No clinical data regarding the W. anomalus cases were reported. Singh et al. (2025) reported prevalence, species distribution, clinical risk factors and antifungal susceptibility of yeasts isolated from sepsis patients in ICUs of a hospital in India. Out of 312 cases caused by yeasts, 37 (11.8%) was caused by W. anomalus. However, yeast species identification was only by traditional growth‐based methods and thus uncertain.

There was no new information that would change the QPS status of Wickerhamomyces anomalus.

Yarrowia lipolytica

The anamorph name of Y. lipolytica are Candida lipolytica and Candida oleophila. Synonym of this species is Saccharomycopsis lipolytica.

Only in one paper there is information about Y. lipolytica provided. Turan et al. (2025) identified 196 isolates from urine and respiratory tract specimens of hospitalised patients in ICUs using MALDI‐TOF MS, and where Y. lypolitica is identified, in addition to other QPS species. The authors also analysed the antifungal susceptibility of the Y. lipolytica isolates, which showed low echinocandin MICs.

There was no new information that would change the QPS status of Yarrowia lipolytica.

3.4.5. Protists

Aurantiochytrium limacinum (Schizochytrium limacinum)

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for A. limacinum provided 14 articles. Following the analysis of their titles and abstract, none was selected for the full text phase. Therefore, the current QPS status of Aurantiochytrium limacinum is not changed.

3.4.6. Algae

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for algae provided 412 articles. Following the analysis of their titles and abstract, none were selected for the full text phase.

Euglena gracilis

No scientific articles dealt with potential safety concerns for E. gracilis. Therefore, the current QPS status of Euglena gracilis is not changed.

Haematococcus lacustris synonym Haematococcus pluvialis

No scientific articles dealt with potential safety concerns for H. lacustris. Therefore, the current QPS status of Haematococcus lacustris is not changed.

Tetraselmis chuii

No scientific articles dealt with potential safety concerns for T. chuii. Therefore, the current QPS status of Tetraselmis chuii is not changed.

3.4.7. Viruses used for plant protection

Alphaflexiviridae and Potyviridae

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for the QPS evaluation of viruses of the Alphaflexiviridae and Potyviridae families provided 664 references. Following the analysis of the title and abstract, eight articles were selected for the full text phase (see Appendix D for all references). None of these scientific articles dealt with potential safety concerns for Alphaflexiviridae and Potyviridae. Therefore, the current QPS status remains unchanged.

Baculoviridae

A search for scientific articles potentially relevant for the QPS evaluation of the Baculoviridae family provided 263 references. Following the analysis of their titles and abstract, one was selected for the full text phase. This article did not deal with potential safety concerns for Baculoviridae. Therefore, the current QPS status remains unchanged.

4. CONCLUSIONS

ToR 1: Keep updated the list of microorganisms being notified, in the context of a technical dossier to EFSA Units (Feed and Contaminants (FEEDCO), Pesticides Peer Review (PREV), Food Ingredients and Packaging (FIP) and Nutrition and Food Innovation (NIF) 9 ), for intentional use in feed and/or food or as sources of food and feed additives, enzymes, plant protection products for safety assessment

• Between October 2025 and March 2026 (inclusive) the list of notifications was updated with 99 notifications that were received by EFSA, of which 47 were proposed for evaluation as feed additives, 32 for use as food enzymes, food additives and flavourings, 5 as novel foods, 15 as plant protection products and none as food contact materials.

ToR 2: Review taxonomic units previously recommended for the QPS list and their qualifications when new information has become available

• The ELS cycle to review the QPS list TUs included the updated names/synonyms verified in the previous Panel Statement as keywords. No changes were found for this period.

• In relation to the results of the monitoring of possible new safety concerns relevant for the QPS list, there were no results that would affect the QPS status or the qualifications for the TUs on the QPS list.

ToR 3: (Re)assess the suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA not present in the current QPS list for their inclusion in that list

• Out of the 99 notifications received between October 2025 and March 2026, 55 were related to TUs that already had QPS status and therefore did not require further evaluation.

• Of the remaining 44 notifications, 30 were related to microorganisms that are generally excluded from QPS evaluation (22 were notifications of filamentous fungi, 6 of Escherichia coli and 2 streptomyces).

• Of the other 14 notifications, corresponding to 11 TUs, 7 were already assessed within the previous QPS 3‐years cycle (Bacillus thuringiensis, Ensifer adhaerens, Enterococcus lactis, Heyndrickxia faecalis, Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, Microbacterium foliorum and Papiliotrema terrestris).

• The other four TUs were assessed for the first time in this Statement: Listeria innocua, Pseudomonas protegens, Lactococcus cremoris (new species, previously a subspecies, which was part of a QPS status species – Lactococcus lactis) and Companilactobacillus pabuli (new species ‘split’ of a previous QPS TU – Companilactobacillus farciminis (synonym Lactobacillus farciminis)).

The following conclusions were drawn:

• Bacillus thuringiensis remains not recommended for inclusion in the QPS list due to safety concerns, confirming the conclusion of the previous assessment. Bacillus thuringiensis is excluded from further QPS assessment.

• Ensifer adhaerens is recommended for the QPS list for production purposes.

• Enterococcus lactis remains not recommended for the QPS status due to insufficient information on safety.

• Heyndrickxia faecalis is recommended for the QPS list.

• Hyphomicrobium denitrificans remains not recommended for the QPS list due to a limited body of knowledge.

• Microbacterium foliorum remains not recommended for the QPS list due to a limited body of knowledge.

• Papiliotrema terrestris remains not recommended for the QPS list due to the limited body of knowledge.

• Companilactobacillus pabuli is recommended for the QPS list.

• Lactococcus cremoris is recommended for the QPS list.

• Listeria innocua is not recommended for the QPS list due to potential safety concerns.

• Pseudomonas protegens is not recommended for the QPS list due to safety concerns.

GLOSSARY

Anamorph name

Valid name of a fungus based on the asexual reproductive state (morphologically)

Antimicrobial compounds

Antibiotics, bacteriocins and/or small peptides with antimicrobial activity

Basonym name

The earliest validly published name of a taxon.

Synonymous name/Homotypic synonym

Have the same type (specimen) and the same taxonomic rank.

Teleomorph name

Valid name of a fungus based on the sexual reproductive state (morphologically)

ABBREVIATIONS

AI

artificial intelligence

AMR

antimicrobial resistance

BIOHAZ

EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards

ELS

extensive literature search

FEEDAP

EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed

FIP

EFSA Food ingredients and Packaging Unit

FSTA

Food Science Technology Abstracts

GMM

genetically modified microorganism

GMO

EFSA Unit on genetically modified organisms

MALDI‐TOF MS

matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionisation (MALDI), time‐of‐flight (TOF) mass spectrometry (MS)

MICs

minimum inhibitory concentrations

PPR

Pesticide Peer Review Unit

QPS

qualified presumption of safety

ToR

Term(s) of reference

TU

taxonomic unit

WG

working group

REQUESTOR

EFSA

QUESTION NUMBER

EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00686

COPYRIGHT FOR NON‐EFSA CONTENT

EFSA may include images or other content for which it does not hold copyright. In such cases, EFSA indicates the copyright holder and users should seek permission to reproduce the content from the original source.

PANEL MEMBERS

EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), Ana Allende, Avelino Alvarez‐Ordóñez, Valeria Bortolaia, Sara Bover‐Cid, Alessandra De Cesare, Wietske Dohmen, Laurent Guillier, Lieve Herman, Liesbeth Jacxsens, Lapo Mughini‐Gras, Maarten Nauta, Jakob Ottoson, Luisa Peixe, Fernando Perez‐Rodriguez, Panagiotis Skandamis, and Elisabetta Suffredini.

APPENDIX A. Search strategy followed for the (re)assessment of the suitability of TUs notified to EFSA not present in the current QPS list for their inclusion in the updated list (reply to ToR 3)

Relevant databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, CAB Abstracts or Food Science Technology Abstracts (FSTA) and Scopus, were searched, based on the judgement of the experts. Details on the search strategy, search keys and approach for each of the assessments of the TUs evaluated in the statement may be found below.

A.1. Bacillus thuringiensis

Outcome	String
1. Antimicrobial/antibiotic/antimycotic	“antimicrobial resistan*” OR “antibiotic resistan*” OR “antimicrobial susceptibil*” OR antimycotic OR antifungal
2. Infection/bacteremia/fungemia/sepsis	infection* OR abscess* OR sepsis* or septic* OR fungemia OR fungaemia OR mycos* OR “food borne” OR “food poison*” OR foodborne OR outbreak* OR intoxication* OR endocarditis OR meningitis
3. Type of disease	endocarditis OR abscess OR meningitis
4. Mortality/morbidity	clinical* OR death* OR morbidit* OR mortalit* OR disease* OR illness* OR symptom* OR “safety concern*” OR hazard*)
5. Disease risk	opportunistic OR virulen* OR toxigenic* OR pathogen* OR toxin*)
6. Genotoxicity	“ames assay*” OR “ames test*” OR aneugen* OR apoptos* OR Aneuploid* OR clastogen* OR chromatid OR chromosom* OR “comet assay*” OR “comet test*” OR ((dna) NEAR/5 (adduct* OR binding OR break* OR deletion* OR damage* OR fragmentation* OR impair* OR inhibition* OR injur* OR lesion* OR polymorphism* OR repair*)) OR ((gene*) NEAR/5 (adduct* OR binding OR break* OR deletion* OR damage OR fragmentation* OR impair* OR inhibition* OR injur* OR lesion* OR polymorphism* OR repair*)) OR (genetic NEAR/5 toxicity) OR “genomic instability” OR genotox* OR homeosta* OR micronucl* OR mutagen* OR mutagenicity OR mutation* OR “oxidative stress” OR “sister chromatid exchange” OR “strand break*”
7. Special keywords for this search	taxonom* OR biopesticide* OR “bio pesticide*” OR “detected” OR “detection” OR prevalen* OR “identification” OR “identified”

A.2. Ensifer adhaerens

Extra searches for updating information related to previous assessments. The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Ensifer adhaerens”, 2024: 13 hits, all checked.

• “Ensifer adhaerens”, 2015: 7 hits, all checked.

A.3. Enterococcus lactis

Extra searches for updating information related to previous assessments. The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Enterococcus lactis”, 2022: 83 hits, all checked.

A.4. Heyndrickxia faecalis

Extra searches for updating information related to previous assessments. The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Heyndrickxia faecalis”, 2024: 4 hits, all checked.

• “Weizmannia faecalis”, 2024: 4 hits, all checked.

A.5. Hyphomicrobium denitrificans

Extra searches for updating information related to previous assessments. The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Hyphomicrobium denitrificans”, 2027:19 hits, two from EFSA, all checked,

A.6. Microbacterium foliorum

Extra searches for updating information related to previous assessments. The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Microbacterium foliorum”, 2022: 61 hits, all checked.

A.7. Papiliotrema terrestris

Extra searches for updating information related to previous assessments. The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Papiliotrema terrestris”, 2021: 14 hits, all checked.

A.8. Companilactobacillus pabuli

The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Companilactobacillus pabuli”: 2 hits, both checked.

A.9. Lactococcus cremoris

The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Lactococcus cremoris”: 165 hits, all checked.

A.10. Listeria innocua

The search on Scopus for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Listeria innocua”: 3416 hits

• “Listeria innocua” AND “safety”: 597 hits

• “Listeria innocua” AND “production of bacteriophages”: 15 hits

• “Listeria innocua” AND “production of bacteriophages” AND “safety”: 4 hits

A.11. Pseudomonas protegens

The search on PubMed for the following terms led to the number of hits indicated below:

• “Pseudomonas protegens”: 317 hits, all checked.

APPENDIX B. Protocol for extensive literature search (ELS), relevance screening and article evaluation for the maintenance and update of the list of QPS‐recommended microorganisms (reply to ToR 2)

The protocol for extensive literature search (ELS) used in the context of the EFSA mandate on the list of QPS‐recommended microorganisms intentionally added to the food or feed is available on the EFSA Knowledge Junction community on Zenodo, at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607188

APPENDIX C. Search strategies for the maintenance and update of the list of QPS‐recommended microorganisms (reply to ToR 2)

The search strategies for each taxonomic unit (TU), that is, the string for each TU and the search outcome, are available on the EFSA Knowledge Junction community on Zenodo at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607192.

APPENDIX D. References selected from the ELS exercise with potential safety concerns for searches done from July to December 2025 (reply to ToR 2)

Gram‐Positive Non‐Sporulating Bacteria

Bifidobacterium spp.

Alshaikh, B. N., Ting, J., Lee, S., Lemyre, B., Wong, J., Afifi, J., Beltempo, M., Shah, P. S., and Canadian Neonatal Network Investigators (2025). Effectiveness and risks of probiotics in preterm infants. Pediatrics, 155(3), e2024069102. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024‐069102

Fissel, J. A., Bergman, Y., Campodónico, V. L., Walsh, D. M., Fanelli, B., Arogyaswamy, K., Kwon, J. H., Milstone, A. M., Tamma, P. D., and Simner, P. J. (2025). Microbiome and resistome characterization of patients colonized with carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacterales by long‐read metagenomic next‐generation sequencing of rectal swabs. JAC‐Antimicrobial Resistance, 7(4), dlaf152. https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlaf152

Jangi, S., McDermott, L., Shum, A., Stiff, K., Perera, L., Friedman, S., and Kumamoto, C. (2025). Bifidobacterium strains may suppress growth of pro‐inflammatory candida species in patients with ulcerative colitis. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 31(Supplement_1), S67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izae282.156

Ng, I. K., Koh, H. K., and Tulsidas, H. (2025). Polymicrobial Emphysematous Pyelonephritis Secondary to Bifidobacterium breve and Klebsiella pneumoniae in a Diabetic Patient on Peritoneal Dialysis. Oman Medical Journal, 40(3), e764. https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2025.18

Sandoval, K. B., and Estrada, Y. G. (2025). #3893 Supply of probiotics with L. rhamnosus and B. longum evaluation of the improvement of uremic gastrointestinal symptoms in patients aged 30–70 years, with hemodialysis treatment at the SENETO clinic, for 1–120 days. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 40(Supplement_3). https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfaf116.1487

Wang, N., Wu, Y., Liu, Y., Wen, Q., Bai, F., Tan, Y., Cui, Y., Liu, X., Bi, Y., Yang, R., and Luo, P. (2026). Probiotic strain identification and safety assessment of unlabeled bacteria in infant products. International journal of food microbiology, 445, 111500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2025.111500

Carnobacterium divergens

Barrientos‐Flores, C., De Lourdes García‐Hernández, M., Mendez‐Sotelo, B. J., Hernández‐Durán, M., Cerón‐González, G., Franco‐Cendejas, R., Colín‐Castro, C. A., and López‐JáCome, L. E. (2025). Unusual encounter: Isolation of Carnobacterium divergens in an immunocompetent patient with a meat grinder Injury. Case report. Infectio, 117–120. https://doi.org/10.22354/24223794.1227

Corynebacterium glutamicum

None.

Lactobacilli

Aljadah, M., Khan, N., Beyer, A. M., Chen, Y., Blanker, A., and Widlansky, M. E. (2024). Clinical Implications of COVID‐19‐Related Endothelial Dysfunction. JACC. Advances, 3(8), 101070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101070

Alshaikh, B. N., Ting, J., Lee, S., Lemyre, B., Wong, J., Afifi, J., Beltempo, M., Shah, P. S., and Canadian Neonatal Network Investigators (2025). Effectiveness and Risks of Probiotics in Preterm Infants. Paediatrics, 155(3), e2024069102. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024‐069102

Amylidi‐Mohr, S. (2025). Infektscreening und ‐behandlung zur Reduktion von Frühgeburten – Helfen auch Probiotika? Die Gynäkologie, 58(10), 618–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129‐025‐05400‐8

Asede, D., Demiraj, F., Rampasad, I., Nath, S., and Nazarian, R. (2025). Uncommon Cause of Meningitis: Lactobacillus mucosae Meningitis in a Patient With Recurrent CSF Leak Post‐craniotomy. Cureus, 17(11), e97414. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.97414

Barzegar, B., Fozouni, L., and Dadgar, T. (2025). Assessment of Anti‐Pseudomonal Potency of Honey Lactobacilli on the Drug‐resistant Strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolated from the Burn Ward. Koomesh, 27(5), e155868. https://doi.org/10.69107/koomesh‐155868

Boranbayeva, T., Karahan, A. G., Toishimanov, M., Zhalelov, D., and Bolat, A. (2025b). Effects of seasonal and regional variations on the bacterial and fungal biodiversity of mares' milk and koumiss in the Almaty and Zhambyl regions of Kazakhstan. International Dairy Journal, 169, 106331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2025.106331

Buchta, V., Nekvindová, J., Leško, D., Vrbacký, F., Veščičík, P., Uhlířová, Z., Andrýs, C., Bolehovská, R., Kacerovský, M., Špaček, J., Mrkvicová, A., Skalská, H., and Plíšková, L. (2025). Vaginal microbiota: different roles of lactobacilli and community instability in chronic vulvovaginal discomfort. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 15, 1636873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1636873

Canales‐Siguero, M. D., García‐Muñoz, C., Caro‐Teller, J. M., Piris‐Borregas, S., Martín‐Aragón, S., Ferrari‐Piquero, J. M., Moral‐Pumarega, M. T., and Pallás‐Alonso, C. R. (2025). Electronic Prescribing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of Prescribing Errors and Risk Factors. Journal of Medical Systems, 49(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916‐025‐02161‐8

Claros Ruiz, J. A., Sánchez Sánchez, C., Vivancos Delgado, R., Gaitán Román, D., and Plata Ciezar, A. J. (2025). Infective endocarditis caused by Lactobacillus rhamnosus in an immunocompetent patient without structural heart disease or invasive procedures: case report and literature review. European Heart Journal. Case Reports, 9(12), ytaf645. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcr/ytaf645

Coltro, E. P., Cafferati Beltrame, L., da Cunha, C. R., Zamparette, C. P., Feltrin, C., Benetti Filho, V., Vanny, P. A., Beduschi Filho, S., Klein, T. C. R., Scheffer, M. C., Palmeiro, J. K., Wagner, G., Sincero, T. C. M., and Zárate‐Bladés, C. R. (2025). Evaluation of the resistome and gut microbiome composition of hospitalized patients in a health unit of southern Brazil coming from a high animal husbandry production region. Frontiers in Antibiotics, 3, 1489356. https://doi.org/10.3389/frabi.2024.1489356

Corriero, A., Soloperto, R., Giglio, M., Salvagno, M., Trerotoli, P., Grasso, S., Ribezzi, M., Mosca, A., Petrillo, C., De Toma, N., Magnesa, G., Giacomucci, A., Accattoli, R., Gadaleta, R. M., Florio, M., Cariello, M., Moschetta, A., Puntillo, F., Taccone, F. S., and Ranieri, V. M. (2025). Probiotics to reduce ventilator‐associated pneumonia in adults with acute non‐anoxic brain injury: Study Protocol for a Double‐Blind Multicenter Randomized International Clinical Trial (PROACT). Trials, 26(1), 484. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063‐025‐09230‐w

Demkin, V. V., Pustotina, O. A., Kazakov, A. A., Vershinina, E. A., Terekhov, M. A., Odinaeva, F. M., Guskova, O. S., and Karaeva, D. R. (2025). Lactobacilli and bacterial vaginosis. Species typing and content analysis in the microbiome. Molecular Genetics Microbiology and Virology, 40(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.3103/s0891416825700144

Fabozzi, G., Soscia, D. M., Cermisoni, G. C., Taggi, M., Innocenti, F., Argento, C., Colamaria, S., Giuliani, M., Ruffa, A., Petrone, P., Ferrero, S., Di Renzo, L., Rienzi, L., Cimadomo, D., and Vaiarelli, A. (2025). O‐302 Impact of personalized nutrition and Lactobacillus crispatus‐M247 administration on euploid blastocyst transfer outcomes in patients with unhealthy lifestyles: A matched case–control study. Human Reproduction, 40(Supplement_1). https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaf097.302

Fiedler, A. R., Dhindsa, B. S., and Singh, S. (2023). S3153 a rare case of Duodeno‐Caval fistula presenting as gastrointestinal bleeding in the setting of vena caval phlebitis. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 118(10S), S2104–S2105. https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0000962252.94380.78

Gefen, R., Parnasa, S. Y., Emile, S. H., Horesh, N., Dourado, J., Garoufalia, Z., Wignakumar, A., Boutros, M., and Wexner, S. D. (2025). Medical therapies to prevent relapse of Crohn's disease after surgery: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery: Official Journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 29(10), 102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2025.102193

Giannini, L., Stella, G., Cattaneo, G., Dipalma, G., and Maspero, C. (2025). Clinical Applications of Probiotics in Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics‐A Systematic Review. Nutrients, 17(19), 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17193153

Ichiyama, S., Ohkusu‐Tsukada, K., and Saeki, H. (2025). Exacerbated signs of atopic dermatitis with gut dysbiosis predominate in male than in female adult patients. Allergology International: Official Journal of the Japanese Society of Allergology, 74(4), 633–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alit.2025.04.002

Kerek, Á., Pézsa, N. P., Kaszab, E., Jerzsele, Á., and Farkas, O. (2025). Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of probiotic strains in the context of antimicrobial resistance. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 12, 1684650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1684650

Khalid, N., Bukhari, S. M., Ali, W., and Sheikh, A. A. (2025). Antibiotic resistance dynamics of some common probiotic Lactobacillus species and avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in colibacillosis‐diseased versus healthy broiler chickens. Veterinary Research Forum: An International Quarterly Journal, 16(7), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2025.2037056.4381

Kim, J., Liao, X., Hasan, M., Elafify, M., Kim, J. C., Ding, T., and Ahn, J. (2026). The impact of probiotics on antibiotic resistance: mechanisms, food safety risks, and regulatory considerations. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 66(7), 1259–1286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2025.2541870

Kynshi, M. A. L., Kharkamni, E., and Borah, V. V. (2025). Proteus mirabilis: Insights into biofilm formation, virulence mechanisms, and novel therapeutic strategies. The Microbe, 8, 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microb.2025.100450

Lekhwar, R., Kumar, S., Tripathi, M., Gangola, S., and Sharma, A. K. (2025). Novel therapeutic strategies targeting infections caused by P. aeruginosa biofilm. Molecular Biology Reports, 52(1), 571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033‐025‐10683‐0

Martins, A. A., Avelino Cassiano, L. B., Silva Júnior, F. L., Caldas, S. G. F. R., Lins, R. D. A. U., and de Aquino Martins, A. R. L. (2026). Does Probiotic Therapy Improve Periodontal Treatment Outcomes in Smoking Patients? A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 18(2), 3318–3326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602‐025‐10717‐w

Naizr, S., Abbas, Z., Gazder, D. P., Shahid, A., Kumar, M., and Maqbool, S. (2025). Incidence and Characterization of SIBO in NAFLD Patients. Euroasian Journal of Hepato‐Gastroenterology, 15(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp‐journals‐10018‐1468

Notario, R., Vallecillo, L., Freije, J., Peyronel, E., and Borda, N. (2025). LACTOBACILLUS ¿UN PROBIÓTICO INOFENSIVO? Revista Médica De Rosario, 91(1), 11–14. Recuperado a partir de https://revistamedicaderosario.org/index.php/rm/article/view/268

Pimentel, M. M. N. S. C., de Carvalho Alves, J., Pinheiro, L. H. S., and Roselino, M. N. (2023). Potential Action of Lactobacillus Probiotics Against Fungi of the Genus Candida: A Bibliographic Review. Recent Patents on Biotechnology, 17(3), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.2174/1872208317666221027093644

Rahim, N., Keller, E., Wagner, E., Berkemeyer, A., Johnson, T., Johnson, D., and Sentongo, T. (2025). A case of yogurt central line‐associated bloodstream infection in a child with intestinal failure. Nutrition in Clinical Practice: Official Publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 41(3), 968–973. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.70025

Sandoval, K. B., and Estrada, Y. G. (2025a). #3893 Supply of probiotics with L. rhamnosus and B. longum evaluation of the improvement of uremic gastrointestinal symptoms in patients aged 30–70 years, with hemodialysis treatment at the SENETO clinic, for 1–120 days. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 40(Supplement_3). https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfaf116.1487

Shanshal, S. A., Alsaaty, M. H., Al‐Qazaz, H., and Al‐Zidan, R. N. (2023). Two Lactobacilli strains as adjuvant therapy in the management of irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized control trial. Dva kmeny laktobacilů jako pomocná terapie při léčbě syndromu dráždivého tračníku: randomizovaná kontrolní studie. Ceska a Slovenska Farmacie: Casopis Ceske Farmaceuticke Spolecnosti a Slovenske Farmaceuticke Spolecnosti, 72(5), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.5817/CSF2023‐5‐233

Shibata, Y., Asai, N., Hagihara, M., and Mikamo, H. (2025). Clinical characteristics and antibiotic susceptibility of Lactobacillus bacteremia: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy: Official Journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy, 31(10), 102,794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2025.102794

Srb, N., Talapko, J., Meštrović, T., Fureš, R., Stupnišek, M., Srb, A. M., and Škrlec, I. (2025). A Comprehensive Overview of Candida albicans as the Leading Pathogen in Vulvovaginal Candidiasis. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 11(9), 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof11090632

Tursi, A., Picchio, M., Elisei, W., Brandimarte, G., Di Mario, F., Danese, S., and Papa, A. (2026). Lactobacillus Paracasei CNCM I 1572 is Better than Placebo in Preventing Acute Diverticulitis Occurrence (Revised Manuscript 661a120f‐b910‐4133‐ab7e‐4bd3e1713c96). Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 18(3), 4738–4745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602‐025‐10812‐y

Turska‐Szybka, A., Olczak‐Kowalczyk, D., and Twetman, S. (2025). Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics, and Postbiotics Against Oral Candida in Children: A Review of Clinical Trials. Nutrients, 17(14), 2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17142253

Wada, N., Kato, K., Arai, S., Sato, S., Iwabuchi, N., Nakano, M., Tokushima, M., and Tanaka, M. (2025). Safety Evaluation of the High‐Dose Intake of Heat‐Killed Lacticaseibacillus paracaseiMCC1849 in Healthy Adults. Food Science and Nutrition, 13(11), e71071. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.71071

Wang, H. Z., Hayles, E. H., Fiander, M., Sinn, J. K., and Osborn, D. A. (2025). Probiotics in infants for prevention of allergic disease. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6(6), CD006475. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006475.pub3

Yang, Y., Sui, J., Liao, W., Wang, S., Pan, D., Sun, G., Gao, P., Xiang, X., and Xia, H. (2026). Clinical Evidence on the Health Benefits and Safety of Probiotic Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus: A Systematic Review. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 18(2), 2927–2941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602‐025‐10646‐8

Yuqi, W., Hangying, X., Ruyi, Y., Xiaolan, Z., and Yajing, C. (2025). Effectiveness of probiotic therapy as an adjunct in the management of periodontal disease in type 2 diabetics: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 226, 112,358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2025.112358

Zhang, T., Tong, C., Wang, J., Gao, S., Li, K., and Wang, X. (2025). An analysis of the vaginal microbiota in women positive for group B Streptococcus during the third trimester of pregnancy. BMC Microbiology, 25(1), 454. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866‐025‐04184‐0

Zhao, Y., Liu, W., and Hu, Y. (2025). Beyond the tumor: the gut microbiome as a key player in immunotherapy efficacy and resistance. Naunyn‐Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, 398(11), 14,983–15,003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210‐025‐04315‐4

Lactococcus lactis

Boranbayeva, T., Karahan, A. G., Toishimanov, M., Zhalelov, D., and Bolat, A. (2025). Effects of seasonal and regional variations on the bacterial and fungal biodiversity of mares' milk and koumiss in the Almaty and Zhambyl regions of Kazakhstan. International Dairy Journal, 169, 106331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2025.106331

Lucano, B. M., Feria, M. A., Zatan, A. E., Toledo, O. E., Aguilar, J. L., Diringer, B. M., and Castañeda, A. E. (2024). Assessing the probiotic potential of Lactococcus lactis isolated from the intestine and gill of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) through in vitro analysis. Fisheries and Aquatic Life, 32(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.2478/aopf‐2024‐0014

Ötkün, S., Numanoğlu Çevik, Y., and Tel, O. Y. (2025). A pilot study on MALDI‐TOF MS‐based discrimination of Enterococcus faecalis and Lactococcus spp. isolated from bovine milk samples. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 41(10), 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274‐025‐04580‐8

Wang, T., Wu, F., Du, T., Jiang, X., Liu, S., Cheng, Y., and Hu, J. (2025). Virulence, Antibiotic Resistance and Cytotoxic Effects of Lactococcus lactis Isolated from Chinese Cows with Clinical Mastitis on MAC‐T Cells. Microorganisms, 13(7), 1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13071674

Leuconostoc spp.

Butt, J., Arva, C., and Borgmann, S. (2025). Both, Limited and Often Fatal Systemic Infections Caused by Leuconostoc spp. in Older, Previously Ill Men Are Usually Acquired in the Outpatient Setting. Microorganisms, 13(7), 1626. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13071626

Nielsen, M. E., Søgaard, K. K., Karst, S. M., Krarup, A. L., Albertsen, M., and Nielsen, H. L. (2025). Application of rapid Nanopore metagenomic cell‐free DNA sequencing to diagnose bloodstream infections: a prospective observational study. Microbiology Spectrum, 13(5), e0329524. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.03295‐24

Ötkün, S., Çevik, Y. N., and Tel, O. Y. (2025). A pilot study on MALDI‐TOF MS‐based discrimination of Enterococcus faecalis and Lactococcus spp. isolated from bovine milk samples. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 41(10), 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274‐025‐04580‐8

Wang, T., Wu, F., Du, T., Jiang, X., Liu, S., Cheng, Y., and Hu, J. (2025). Virulence, Antibiotic Resistance and Cytotoxic Effects of Lactococcus lactis Isolated from Chinese Cows with Clinical Mastitis on MAC‐T Cells. Microorganisms, 13(7), 1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13071674

Microbacterium imperiale

None.

Oenococcus oeni

None.

Pediococci spp.

Kerek, Á., Palkovicsné Pézsa, N., Kaszab, E., Jerzsele, Á., and Farkas, O. (2025). Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of probiotic strains in the context of antimicrobial resistance. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 12, 1684650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1684650

Suenaga, T., Shimura, E., Shema, J. D. D., Gotoh, T., Nishijima, W., and Nakai, S. (2025). Draft genome sequence of five strains of family Lactobacillaceae isolated from a seasoning liquid of Hiroshimana old pickle. Microbiology Resource Announcements, 14(10), e0052125. https://doi.org/10.1128/mra.00521‐25

Propionibacterium spp.

None.

Streptococcus thermophilus

None

Gram‐Positive Spore‐forming Bacteria

Bacillus spp.

Chongtao, G., Yixuan, L., Tianmei, S., Ran, W., Yanan, S., and Xiaoxu, Z. (2025). The Global Prevalence of Bacillusspp. in Milk and Dairy Products: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Foods, 14(15), 2599–2599.

Dobos, A., Szeredi, L., Kovačić, M., Đuričić, D., Kiss, I., Dénes, B., Makrai, L., Kreizinger, Z., and Fodor, I. (2021). Infertility in dairy cows – Possible bacterial and viral causes. Veterinarska Stanica, 53(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.46419/vs.53.1.8

EFSA CEP Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids), Lambré, C., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Cocconcelli, P. S., Crebelli, R., Gott, D. M., Grob, K., Lampi, E., Mengelers, M., Mortensen, A., Rivière, G., Steffensen, I.‐L., Tlustos, C., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Zorn, H., Herman, L., Aguilera, J., … Chesson, A. (2023). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme bacillolysin from the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AGS 430. EFSA Journal, 21(11), e8392. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8392

EFSA CEP Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids), Lambré, C., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Cocconcelli, P. S., Crebelli, R., Gott, D. M., Grob, K., Lampi, E., Mengelers, M., Mortensen, A., Rivière, G., Steffensen, I.‐L., Tlustos, C., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Zorn, H., Herman, L., Aguilera, J., … Chesson, A. (2023). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme bacillolysin from the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain GNP. EFSA Journal, 21(11), e8391. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8391

EFSA CEP Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids), Lambré, C., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Cocconcelli, P. S., Crebelli, R., Gott, D. M., Grob, K., Lampi, E., Mengelers, M., Mortensen, A., Rivière, G., Steffensen, I.‐L., Tlustos, C., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Zorn, H., Herman, L., Roos, Y., … Chesson, A. (2024). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme bacillolysin from the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain NZYM‐NB. EFSA Journal, 22(2), e8615. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8615

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Sramkova, M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Fernandez‐Fraguas, C., Sanmartín, L., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme pullulanase from the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain DP‐Dzp107. EFSA Journal, 23(6), e9481. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9481

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Marzo Solano, M. d. L., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Cabo, L. S., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme α‐amylase from the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain DP‐Dzb105. EFSA Journal, 23(7), e9531. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9531

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Peluso, S., Andryszkiewicz, M., Cavanna, D., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme α‐amylase from the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain DP‐Dzb106. EFSA Journal, 23(7), e9529. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9529

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Fernández‐Fraguas, C., Cavanna, D., Lunardi, S., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme α‐amylase from the non‐genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain TTME 6280 KY. EFSA Journal, 23(11), e9720. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9720

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Fernández‐Fraguas, C., Cavanna, D., Multari, S., Precup, G., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme α‐amylase from the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain CCTCC M 2023118. EFSA Journal, 23(11), e9721. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9721

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Lunardi, S., Andryszkiewicz, M., Cavanna, D., Peluso, S., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme subtilisin from the genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain DP‐Ezx62. EFSA Journal, 23(10), e9670. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9670

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Pasch, J., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of an extension of use of the food enzyme bacillolysin from the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AGS 430. EFSA Journal, 23(8), e9620. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9620

Egbule, O. S., Odum, E. I., Oyubu, O. L., Odibe, S. C., and Iweriebor, B. C. (2024). Poultry manure and vegetables as vehicles for antimicrobial resistance determinants distribution in some Farms in Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 16(3), 1164–1175. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v16i3.5725

Eryiğit, Ş. Ç., Üstüntaş, T., Erdoğan, K. N., Gençeli, M., and Akcan, Ö. M. (2025). Rotavirüs Gastroenteriti Sırasında Bacillus clausii Bakteriyemisi: Olgu Sunumu. Çocuk Enfeksiyon Dergisi/Journal of Pediatric Infection, 19(3), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.5578/ced.20250319

Eryiğit, Ş. Ç., Üstüntaş, T., Erdoğan, K. N., Gençeli, M., and Akcan, Ö. M. (2025a). Bacillus clausii Bacteremia During Rotavirus Gastroenteritis: A Case Report. Çocuk Enfeksiyon Dergisi/Journal of Pediatric Infection, 19(3), 191–194. https://doi.org/10.5578/ced.20250306

Farizano, J. V., Castagnaro, E., Arroyo‐Egea, J. T., Aparicio, J. D., Vallejos, A. C., Hebert, E. M., Saavedra, L., Rapisarda, V. A., Villegas, J. M., and Grillo‐Puertas, M. (2025). Virulence traits and bacterial interactions within the complex microbial population in urinary double‐J catheters. Frontiers in Microbiology, 16, 1624743. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1624743

Fouad, Y., Pan, Z., Nafady, S., Mostafa, A. M., Bakr, A., Hagag, M., Gomaa, A., Zaky, S., and Eslam, M. (2025). HOMA‐IR, an independent predictor of advanced liver fibrosis in metabolic‐dysfunction associated fatty liver disease: a cross‐sectional study in Egyptian patients. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 31098. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐025‐15425‐7

Gao, S., Tian, L., Zeng, Y., Wang, H., and Yu, Y. (2025). A meta‐analysis and systematic review on the association between air pollution and chronic liver diseases. Nanotoxicology, 19(6), 589–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2025.2565212

García, G., Soto, J., Díaz, A., Barreto, J., Soto, C., Pérez, A. B., Boffill, S., Gutiérrez, Á., and Cano, R. d. J. (2024). Clinical and In Vitro Safety of Heyndrickxia coagulans AO 1167B: A Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Trial. Microorganisms, 12(12), 2584. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12122584

İnci, Ş., and Kırbağ, S. (2024). Lactarius controversus (Pers.) Pers.'in antimikrobiyal etkisinin belirlenmesi. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.17474/artvinofd.1335292

Ishola, A., Lawal, R., and Ishola, L. (2024). Antibiotic Susceptibility Profile of Soil‐Borne Microorganisms Isolated from Selected Dump‐sites in Ogbomoso, Oyo State. Dutse Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 10(1b), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.4314/dujopas.v10i1b.14

Kerek, Á., Palkovicsné Pézsa, N., Kaszab, E., Jerzsele, Á., and Farkas, O. (2025). Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of probiotic strains in the context of antimicrobial resistance. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 12, 1684650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1684650

Khalaf, A. A., Hussain, K. a. M., and Saleh, R. H. (2023). Oral microbiota relationship with and without gingivitis in Iraqi patients. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 15(4), 1505–1513. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v15i4.4980

Li, W., Liang, Y., Li, G., Yang, D., and Zhang, X. (2025). Efficacy and safety of live combined Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus faecium in patients with constipation: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 16, 1688544. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1688544

Mominkhan, D., Brito, L. C. N., Yakubu, A. R., Larson, E., Martin, L., Patel, M., Tavares, W. L. F., Ribeiro‐Sobrinho, A., and Teles, F. (2025). Exploring Relationships Within the Microbiome of Root Canal Infections and the Influence of Associated Clinical Parameters. International Endodontic Journal, 58(11), 1751–1763. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.70011

Oğuz, M., Soylu, S., Üremiş, İ., Uysal, A., Soylu, E. M., Kurt, Ş., and Sertkaya, E. (2024). Determination of fungal and bacterial microbiota of broomrape species found in their major host plants grown in Hatay province of Türkiye. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 29(3), 896–911. https://doi.org/10.37908/mkutbd.1516441

Patel, B. D., Kulkarni, G., Chowdhuri, S., Arya, A., John, K. M., Doshi, A. S. P., Nair, R., and Korukonda, K. (2025). Evaluation of Streptococcus faecalis, Clostridium butyricum, Bacillus mesentericus, Lactobacillus sporogenes, Saccharomyces Boulardi multistrain probiotic formulation in acute gastroenteritis: a real‐world observational study (MAESTRO). BMC Nutrition, 11(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795‐025‐01127‐w

Reginaldo, L. T. R. T., de Freitas Souza, M., da Silva, C. C., Silva, J. L. D. S., de Aquino, G. S. M., das Chagas, P. S. F., Blat, N. R., Ambrósio, M. M. Q., Holanda, I. S. A., and Silva, D. V. (2025). Selection of microbial isolates for oxyfluorfen degradation in soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 498, 139969. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139969

Sada, R. M., Yamamoto, G., Hamaguchi, S., Kuroda, E., Okura, A., Cai, M., Nakanishi, K., Abe, N., Yamamoto, S., and Kutsuna, S. (2025). The Majority of Bacillus subtilis Strains Isolated From Blood Cultures Were Derived From Traditional Japanese Fermented Soybeans Natto: A Single‐center Retrospective Study. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 12(9), ofaf574. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf574

Sarkar, A., Banerjee, P., and Mazumdar, A. (2025). Intraspecific and interspecific comparison among bacterial communities in salivary glands and gut of five Culicoides spp. (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae), vectors of bluetongue virus. Acta Tropica, 270, 107778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2025.107778

Savelli, D., Baldelli, G., Gabucci, C., Amagliani, G., Schiavano, G. F., Cavaliere, F., Marcelli, A., Primavilla, S., Lorenzetti, C., Di Lullo, S., Blasi, G., Scoccia, E., Albini, E., Garofolo, G., Leoni, F., Barchiesi, F., and Petruzzelli, A. (2025). Integrated culture‐based and molecular approach for the detection of three Arcobacter species in sushi and fresh vegetables. Food Microbiology, 132, 104843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2025.104843

Spears, J., Brutscher, L., Garvey, S., Farmar, J., Gebrechristos, S., and Schuler, C. (2025). *Bacillus velezensis compositions and methods of use thereof* (U.S. Patent Application No. US20250017985A1). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20250017985A1/en

Sun, T., Wang, R., Sun, Y., Zhang, X., Ge, C., and Li, Y. (2025). The Global Prevalence of Bacillus spp. in Milk and Dairy Products: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 14(15), 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14152599

Uysal, A., Kurt, Ş., Soylu, S., Kara, M., and Soylu, E. M. (2022). Hatay ilinde yer alan turunçgil paketleme tesislerinde meyve ve hava kökenli mikrobiyata içerisindeki fungal ve bakteriyel türler ile yoğunluklarının belirlenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(2), 340–351. https://doi.org/10.37908/mkutbd.1095692

Wang, X., Nong, L., Schaar, G., Koenders, B., Jonker, M., de Leeuw, W., and Ter Kuile, B. H. (2025). Collateral sensitivity and cross‐resistance in six species of bacteria exposed to six classes of antibiotics. Microbiology Spectrum, 13(8), e0098325. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00983‐25

Zhu, L., Chen, K., Xu, L., Wang, A., Gan, H., Sun, J., Wu, Y., Li, Y., Guo, Y., Yi, Y., Qiang, X., He, J., Zhou, H., and Lin, Y. (2025). Genomic Investigation of a Bacillus subtilis Strain Sourced from Commercially Available Milk Powder in China Reveals Potential Risk Factors. Infection and Drug Resistance, 18, 4311–4328. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S544153

Geobacillus stearothermophilus

None.

Pasteuria nishizawae

None.

Gram‐negative bacteria

Cupriavidus necator

None.

Gluconobacter oxydans

None.

Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans

None.

Xanthomonas campestris

None.

Agrobacterium radiobacter synonym Rhizobium radiobacter

Abdulmaged, I. M., and Sulaiman, A. I. (2024). Isolation and identification of Rhizobium radiobacter From UTI patients in Mosul City. Microbes and Infectious Diseases/Microbes and Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.21608/mid.2024.305124.2088

Anisimova, A. S., Aronova, N. V., Tsimbalistova, M. V., Pavlovich, N. V., and Levchenko, A. S. (2025). Comparatively assessed biological models for determining the pathogenic properties of certain pathogens causing community‐acquired pneumonia. Russian Journal of Infection and Immunity, 15(5), 881–887. https://doi.org/10.15789/2220‐7619‐cab‐17905

Chen, S., Wang, X., and Zhang, L. (2025). Insights into the taxonomy and virulence‐related genetic profiles in 97 Cupriavidus strains through comparative genomic analysis. BMC Genomics, 26(1), 868. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864‐025‐11841‐1

Liu, M., Jiang, X., Pi, Y., Ren, X., Chen, M., Tang, S., Dai, X., Wu, Y., Guo, Y., Zhang, X., Luo, Z., and Xie, X. (2025). Agrobacterium radiobacter Bacteremia in a Gastric Cancer Patient: A Case Report and Literature Review. Infection and Drug Resistance, 18, 6279–6288. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S556428.

Mizutani, N., Kato, K., Kashima, Y., Matsui, Y., Sugimoto, M., Matsubara, H., and Kondo, M. (2025). Bacterial Endophthalmitis with lens capsule rupture and retinal detachment: A case report of Rhizobium radiobacter infection. American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports, 38, 102323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2025.102323

Tekeli, O., Kara, T. T., Çetin, H. S., Kızıl, H. B. Ç., Açık, A. K., Küpesiz, F. T., and Oğünç, M. D. (2025). A retrospective study: management of Rhizobium radiobacter‐associated bloodstream infections in pediatric hematology and oncology patients. Revista Da Associação Médica Brasileira, 71(6), e20241944. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806‐9282.20241944

Vanhoutte, H., Mignon, M., and Schrijvers, D. (2025). Rhizobium radiobacter bloodsream infections: a case report. European Journal of Clinical and Medical Oncology, 19, 292–295.

Yousaf, E., Pervaiz, R., Rana, M. A., Mehboob, A., and Raza, S. (2025). An Unusual Case of Rhizobium radiobacter in Bronchoalveolar Lavage. Cureus, 17(9), e92808. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.92808

Vibrio natriegens

None.

Yeasts

Aguieiras, M. C., Mello, E. O., Resende, L. M., Taveira, G. B., Souza, T. a. M., Cherene, M. B., Oliveira, A. P., Nagano, C. S., Chaves, R. P., Carvalho, A. O., Rodrigues, R., Trindade, F., Da Cunha, M., and Gomes, V. M. (2025). Antimicrobial Activity of a Defensin‐Rich Fraction from Capsicum chinense Fruits: Insights for Biotechnological Applications against Fungal Infections. Protein and Peptide Letters, 33(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.2174/0109298665377738250626233111

Agyare‐Tabbi, M. R., Uthayakumar, D., Francis, D., Maroc, L., Grant, C., McQueen, P., Westmacott, G., Shaker, H., Skulska, I., Gagnon‐Arsenault, I., Boisvert, J., Landry, C. R., and Shapiro, R. S. (2024). The putative error prone polymerase REV1 mediates DNA damage and drug resistance in Candida albicans. NPJ Antimicrobials and Resistance, 2(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44259‐024‐00057‐0

Al‐Chalabi, F. A., Abed, R. M., Risan, M. H., and Jabr, Y. D. (2024). Prevalence of Candida albicans Infection Among Diabetic Foot Ulcer Patients in Al‐Yarmouk Teaching Hospital. Medical Journal of Babylon, 21(Suppl 1), S137–S140. https://doi.org/10.4103/mjbl.mjbl_215_23

Argente‐Colás, L., Beramendi, L., Maidagan, N., Cuevas‐Alcón, J. A., Navascués‐Ortega, A., Ezpeleta‐Baquedano, C., Portillo, M. E., and Fernández‐Huerta, M. (2026). Clinical evaluation of the Novaplex™ Dermatophyte qPCR assay for the detection of dermatophyte fungi and Candida albicans in skin and nail material. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 114(2), 117109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2025.117109

Arsić Arsenijević, V., Gerginić, V., Jurišić, A., Otaševic, S., Ranđelović, M., and Petričević, L. (2025). Prevalence of Candida and Other Yeasts in Vulvovaginal Infections during Pregnancy: A 10‐Year Serbian Survey. Mycopathologia, 190(5), 86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11046‐025‐00989‐9

Asadzadeh, M., Ahmad, S., Meis, J. F., Parker, J. E., and Alfouzan, W. (2025). Head‐to‐Head Comparison of Etest, MICRONAUT‐AM EUCAST and Reference Broth Microdilution‐Based CLSI Results for Candida kefyr Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Implications for Detection of Reduced Susceptibility to Amphotericin B. Journal of Fungi, 11(8), 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof11080570

Bałabański, T., Biedunkiewicz, A., and Jastrzębski, J. P. (2025). Yeast diversity on sandy lake beaches used for recreation in Olsztyn, Poland. Pathogens, 14(8), 744. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14080744

Balan, B., Dhaulaniya, A. S., Kumar, M., Kumar, M., and Kumar, P. (2024). Aflatoxins in food: Prevalence, health effects, and emerging trends in its mitigation—An updated review. Food Safety and Health, 2(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh3.12030

Bédard, C., Pageau, A., Fijarczyk, A., Mendoza‐Salido, D., Alcañiz, A. J., Després, P. C., Durand, R., Plante, S., Alexander, E. M. M., Rouleau, F. D., Jordan, D. F., Jay, A., Giguère, M., Bernier, M., Sharma, J., Maroc, L., Gervais, N. C., Menon, A. C. T., Gagnon‐Arsenault, I., … Landry, C. R. (2025). FungAMR: a comprehensive database for investigating fungal mutations associated with antimicrobial resistance. Nature Microbiology, 10(9), 2338–2352. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564‐025‐02084‐7

Benito‐Castellanos, A., Larreina, B., Banda, M. T. C., Santamaría, P., González‐Arenzana, L., and Gutiérrez, A. R. (2025). Biodiversity of Yeast Species Isolated During Spontaneous Fermentation: Influence of Grape Origin, Vinification Conditions, and Year of Study. Microorganisms, 13(7), 1707. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13071707

Bloch, A., Bogiel, T., Prażyńska, M., and Gospodarek‐Komkowska, E. (2025). Usefulness of Chromogenic Media in the Identification of Candida spp. Yeasts Compared to Mass Spectrometry. Methods and Protocols, 8(5), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps8050098

Bolshakova, H. M., Minukhin, V. V., Zhuravlova, I. V., Golubka, O. V., Chastii, T. V., Kuchma, I. Y., Savinova, T. V., and Shevchenko, Y. V. (2025). Persistence of Candida spp. in patients with inflammatory diseases of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts: analysis of laboratory studies in Kharkiv Region, Ukraine (2019–2021). Regulatory Mechanisms in Biosystems, 16(2), e25068. https://doi.org/10.15421/0225068

Boranbayeva, T., Karahan, A. G., Toishimanov, M., Zhalelov, D., and Bolat, A. (2025c). Effects of seasonal and regional variations on the bacterial and fungal biodiversity of mares' milk and koumiss in the Almaty and Zhambyl regions of Kazakhstan. International Dairy Journal, 169, 106331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2025.106331

Bregón‐Villahoz, M., Díez, A., Galech, J., Cuétara, M. S., Carrano, G., Moragues, M. D., Fernandez‐de‐Larrinoa, I., and Arrieta‐Aguirre, I. (2025). Diagnostic Potential of a Recombinant Candida albicans Hyr1 Protein. Mycopathologia, 190(6), 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11046‐025‐01025‐6

Cejudo‐Garcés, A., Carda‐Diéguez, M., Navarro‐Vicente, F., Calatayud, S., Ortiz‐Masiá, D., Mira, Á., Barrachina, M. D., and Cosín‐Roger, J. (2025). Characterisation of Intestinal Mycobiome in Surgical Resections from Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Deeper Analysis in Complicated Crohn's Disease Phenotypes. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 31(12), 3256–3270. https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izaf178

Chen, L., Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Jiang, J. J., Wang, Z., Yin, X. C., Li, H. X., Lu, Q., and Shi, R. H. (2025). Zhonghua yi Xue za Zhi, 105(33), 2887–2890. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112137‐20250226‐00463

Ciasico, M. N. A. (2024). Caulerpa J. V. Lamouroux (1809) (Chlorophyta: Bryopsidales) species and sites in eastern Samar, central Philippines. Open Journal of Ecology, 14(10), 747–753. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2024.1410043

Corriero, A., Soloperto, R., Giglio, M., Salvagno, M., Trerotoli, P., Grasso, S., Ribezzi, M., Mosca, A., Petrillo, C., De Toma, N., Magnesa, G., Giacomucci, A., Accattoli, R., Gadaleta, R. M., Florio, M., Cariello, M., Moschetta, A., Puntillo, F., Taccone, F. S., and Ranieri, V. M. (2025). Probiotics to reduce ventilator‐associated pneumonia in adults with acute non‐anoxic brain injury: Study Protocol for a Double‐Blind Multicenter Randomized International Clinical Trial (PROACT). Trials, 26(1), 484. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063‐025‐09230‐w

Das, R., Tamang, B., Najar, I. N., Bam, M., and Rai, P. K. (2024). Probiotic yeast characterization and fungal amplicon metagenomics analysis of fermented bamboo shoot products from Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India. Heliyon, 10(20), e39500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39500.

Di Fiore, A., Buonanno, M., Esposito, D., D'Ambrosio, K., Langella, E., De Simone, G., Alterio, V., and Monti, S. M. (2025). Saccharomyces cerevesiae, Candida spp. and Cryptococcus neoformans β‐CAs. The Enzymes, 57, 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.enz.2025.07.001

Domínguez, G. C. S., Gaona, N. B. O., Alfonso, L., Aguilar, G., and Quintero, L. (2024). Perfil microbiológico de especies de cándida aisladas de hemocultivos de pacientes pediátricos. Años 2019 a 2023. Pediatría (Asunción), 51(3), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.31698/ped.51032024005

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Sramkova, M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Andryszkiewicz, M., Cavanna, D., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme sucrose:sucrose fructosyltransferase from the genetically modified Yarrowia lipolytica strain E4772. EFSA Journal, 23(6), e9490. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9490

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Fernàndez‐Fraguas, C., Cavanna, D., Peluso, S., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme asparaginase from the non‐genetically modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain ARY‐2. EFSA Journal, 23(7), e9532. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9532

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Sramkova, M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Aguilera, J., Cavanna, D., Fernàndez‐Fraguas, C., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme asparaginase from the non‐genetically modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain ARY‐1. EFSA Journal, 23(7), e9533. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9533

EFSA FEZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Enzymes), Zorn, H., Baviera, J. M. B., Bolognesi, C., Catania, F., Gadermaier, G., Greiner, R., Mayo, B., Mortensen, A., Roos, Y. H., Solano, M. L. M., Sramkova, M., Van Loveren, H., Vernis, L., Aguilera, J., Cavanna, D., Fernàndez‐Fraguas, C., and Liu, Y. (2025). Safety evaluation of the food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase from the genetically modified Komagatella phaffii strain LALL‐LI2. EFSA Journal, 23(6), e9486. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9486

Ermenlieva, N., Stamova, S., Ivanova, N., Atanasova, P., Marinova, V., Ibryamova, S., Ivanov, I., and Georgieva, E. (2025). Yeast Ecology in White Brined Cheeses: Correlations with Physicochemical Parameters in Artisanal and Industrial Products. Microorganisms, 13(9), 1965. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13091965

Füchtbauer, J. D., Brovkina, O., Sivickis, K., Aalykke, C., Høivik, M. L., Andersen, V., Halfvarson, J., Bang, C., Franke, A., and Kjeldsen, J. (2025). Gut Mycobiome in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review of Case–Control Studies. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 31(11), 3213–3224. https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izaf217

Garcia‐Sherman, M. C., Hamid, S. A., Jackson, D. N., Thomas, J., and Lipke, P. N. (2025). Functional amyloids in adhesion of non‐albicans candida species. Pathogens, 14(8), 723. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14080723

Glushakova, A., and Kachalkin, A. (2025). Shared core and host specificities of culturable pathogenic yeast microbiome in fresh and dry feces of five synanthropic wild birds (Rock pigeon, European starling, White wagtail, Great Tit and House sparrow). Birds, 6(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/birds6030041

Harrington, A. A., Nickels, T. J., and Cunningham, K. W. (2025). Echinocandin tolerance and persistence in vitro are regulated by calcineurin signaling in Candida glabrata. mBio, 17(1), e0254625. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02546‐25

Hu, S., Zhu, Q. Y., Zhu, H. Y., Liu, J. Y., Shi, Y., Qiu, Y. J., Wen, Z., Li, A. H., Han, P. J., and Bai, F. Y. (2025). Yeast diversity in traditional fermented foods of ethnic minorities in China, with the descriptions of four new yeast species. IMA Fungus, 16, e146163. https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.16.146163

Ibe, C., and Pohl, C. H. (2025). Climatic and endothermic thermal stress adaptation may be a major driver of emerging and emergent multidrug resistant fungi. Frontiers in Microbiology, 16, 1575755. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1575755

Jay, A., Jordan, D. F., Gerstein, A., and Landry, C. R. (2025). The role of gene copy number variation in antimicrobial resistance in human fungal pathogens. NPJ Antimicrobials and Resistance, 3, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44259‐024‐00072‐1

Keil E. (2024). A Warning Against Antibiotic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Non‐Typhoidal Salmonella Infections in Immunocompetent Adults: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Cureus, 16(12), e75953. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.75953

Khadim, A. A., and Alfayyadh, I. (2025). Investigation of virulence determinants of Candida species and some serological assessments of periodontitis in Thi‐Qar Province, Iraq. Microbial Biosystems, 10(2), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.21608/mb.2025.370062.1282

Kolar, Q. K., Krogstad, K. C., Swartz, T. H., Mamedova, L. K., Mavangira, V., Yoon, I., Bradford, B. J., and Ruegg, P. L. (2025). Effect of dietary supplementation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on clinical outcomes in dairy cows during challenge with Streptococcus uberis. Journal of Dairy Science, 108(11), 12618–12631. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025‐26541

Kondaka, K., Sappati, S., Rząd, K., Paluszkiewicz, E., Maciejewska, N., Baginski, M., and Gabriel, I. (2025). Bisacridine derivatives as effective eukaryotic topoisomerase II inhibitors. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 301, 118174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2025.118174

Kovács, R., and Jakab, Á. (2025). The effects of tyrosol on yeasts: an overview of current knowledge. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 109(1), 201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253‐025‐13595‐y

Kwenda, G., Mwaba, J., Sokoni, C., Kaile, C., Kabansa, F., Mwenya, D., Mwamba, T. M., Mpembe, R., Jallow, S., Mashau, R., Govender, N., and Sokoni, C. (2025). Candida and bacterial skin colonisation of critically‐ill patients in two tertiary healthcare facilities in Zambia. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 152, 107509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2024.107509

Levi, O., Zuchman, R., Sleman, N., Koren, R., Khamaisi, H., and Horwitz, B. A. (2025). Genome‐wide CRISPRi screen and proteomic profiling identify key genes related to ferulic acid's antifungal activity. mBio, 16(10), e0190925. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01909‐25

Ling, Z., Cheng, Y., Lan, Z., Liu, X., Zhu, Z., Ding, W., Xu, X., Yu, P., Xu, X., Shao, L., Song, Q., and Liao, R. (2025). Gut mycobiota dysbiosis and systemic immune dysfunction in Chinese schizophrenia patients with metabolic syndrome. Frontiers in Immunology, 16, 1652633. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1652633

Ling, Z., Cheng, Y., Liu, X., Xu, X., Wu, L., Shao, L., Zhu, Z., Ding, W., Song, Q., Zhao, L., and Jin, G. (2025). Schizophrenia‐associated alterations in faecal mycobiota and systemic immune dysfunction: a cohort study of elderly Chinese patients. Frontiers in Immunology, 16, 1607739. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1607739

Lovo, C. B., Ramos, I. V. G., Silva, L. D., Lopes, N. C., Durlacher, R. R., Rodrigues, R. S., Khuen, C. C., Souza, E. B. A., Carvalho, C. M., and Matos, N. B. (2025). Antifungal susceptibility and virulence factors of Candida species isolated in patients from Porto Velho, Rondônia, Brazilian Amazon. Brazilian Journal of Biology = Revista Brasleira de Biologia, 85, e291553. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519‐6984.291553

Ma, Y., Liu, S., Zhang, G., Liu, L., Sun, J., Zou, Y., Sun, Y., Li, L., Rao, B., Wang, H., Yu, Z., and Ren, Z. (2025). Dynamic alterations of oral fungal microbiota in Omicron infected patients. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 35831. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐025‐19819‐5

Mairami, F., and Ahmad, B. (2024). Fungal Isolation and Characterization from some Ornamental Plants in Baze University Abuja, Nigeria. Dutse Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 10(1b), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.4314/dujopas.v10i1b.7

Maqueda‐Cabrera, E. E., Castillo‐Baltazar, A., Vázquez‐López, N. A., Almanza‐Villegas, M., Ramírez‐Apan, M. T., Ortega‐Alfaro, M. C., López‐Cortés, J. G., Moreno, A., and Cuéllar‐Cruz, M. (2025). New insights on Drug's design against candidiasis on the fructose biphosphate aldolase (Fba1) and the pyruvate kinase (Pk) of Candida glabrata. Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports, 43, 102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrep.2025.102175

Marques Ferreira, I., Coelho, R., Cruz, C., Ferreira Henriques, I., and Ribeiro, S. (2025). A Rare Presentation of Crohn's Disease: A Case Report. Cureus, 17(12), e99101. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.99101

Miao, Y., Yadav, V., Shadrick, W., Liu, J., Jenner, A. R., Nichols, C. B., Gee, C., Schäfer, M., Tenor, J. L., Perfect, J. R., Lee, R. E., Brennan, R. G., and Washington, E. J. (2025). Inhibitors of trehalose‐6‐phosphate synthase activity in fungal pathogens compromise thermal tolerance pathways. bioRxiv, 2025.03.07.642065. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.07.642065

Mohammadi, R., Safari, F., Sami, M., Falahati, H., and Keshavarzpour, Z. (2025). Molecular identification and phylogenetic analysis of yeast strains isolated from dairy products in Isfahan, Iran. Iranian Journal of Microbiology, 17(4), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijm.v17i4.19262

Nadir, Y. (2025). Candida kefyr as an emerging cause of invasive fungal infection in transplant patients: Case report and literature review. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 113(4), 117052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2025.117052

Parker, R. A., Hannagan, D. S., Strydom, J. H., Boon, C. J., Fussell, J., Mitchell, C. A., Moerschel, K. L., Valter‐Franco, A. G., and Cornelison, C. T. (2025). A Complete Transfer Learning‐Based Pipeline for Discriminating Between Select Pathogenic Yeasts from Microscopy Photographs. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 14(5), 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14050504

Patel, B. D., Kulkarni, G., Chowdhuri, S., Arya, A., John, K. M., Doshi, A. S. P., Nair, R., and Korukonda, K. (2025). Evaluation of Streptococcus faecalis, Clostridium butyricum, Bacillus mesentericus, Lactobacillus sporogenes, Saccharomyces Boulardi multistrain probiotic formulation in acute gastroenteritis: a real‐world observational study (MAESTRO). BMC Nutrition, 11(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795‐025‐01127‐w

Patil, J. D., Sogawa, H., and Mulligan, D. (2025). A Rare Case of Cyberlindnera jadinii Fungemia in a Kidney Transplant Recipient: A Case Report. Case Reports in Transplantation, 3478928. https://doi.org/10.1155/crit/3478928

Peterson, L. F., Beck, L., and Brewer, M. G. (2025). Candida spp. diminish viral susceptibility of human keratinocytes and promote an antiviral state. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 145(8), S104.

Philips, C., Theruvath, A., Keshri, J., Pascricha, G., Madhusoodhanan, J., Nagarajan, S., Krishnan, Y., Perumal, R., Alex, A., and Augustine, P. (2025). A single center experience from India on associations of fungal microbiota (mycobiome) in cirrhosis‐orally‐predominant fungal dysbiosis in the gut and immune‐escaping Candida species drive outcomes in hospitalized patients [Poster presentation]. Journal of Hepatology, 82(S1), S70‐S858.

Pitoni, D., Dal Buono, A., Gabbiadini, R., Ronca, V., Colapietro, F., Pugliese, N., Ribaldone, D. G., Bezzio, C., Lleo, A., and Armuzzi, A. (2025). Navigating Neoplasm Risk in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis. Cancers, 17(13), 2165. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132165

Rehorska, R., Bohm, A., Reisner, A., and Pollinger‐Zierler, B. (2025). Yeasts that grow on hops Brauwelt International, 43(4), 229–232.

Roberts, J. A., Sime, F. B., Lipman, J., Hernández‐Mitre, M. P., Baptista, J. P., Brüggemann, R. J., Darvall, J., De Waele, J. J., Dimopoulos, G., Lefrant, J. Y., Mat Nor, M. B., Rello, J., Seoane, L., Slavin, M. A., Valkonen, M., Venditti, M., Ceccarelli, G., Wong, W. T., Zeitlinger, M., and Roger, C. (2025). Are contemporary antifungal doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Outcomes from an international, multicenter pharmacokinetics study for Screening Antifungal Exposure in Intensive Care Units‐the SAFE‐ICU study. Intensive Care Medicine, 51(2), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134‐025‐07793‐5

Safari, F., Madani, M., Zare, F., Ghahremanzadeh, A., Vaez, A., and Morovati, H. (2025). Molecular Identification of Candida Species among Iranian Patients: Pursuing Candida auris. Advanced Biomedical Research, 14, 108. https://doi.org/10.4103/abr.abr_678_24

Salmanov, A. G., Netskar, I. P., Kostikov, V. V., Korniyenko, S. M., Artyomenko, V., Rud, V. O., Kovalyshyn, O. A., and Zarichanska, K. (2023). Vulvovaginal candidiasis after gynecological surgeries and adverse pregnancy outcome in Ukraine: A multicentre study. Wiadomosci Lekarskie (Warsaw, Poland: 1960), 76(12), 2556–2563. https://doi.org/10.36740/WLek202312102

Saraiva, S., Saraiva, C., Lazou, T., Chaintoutis, S., Mesquita, J. R., Coelho, A. C., and Poeta, P. (2025). Yeast diversity in chicken meat products: Occurrence, hazards, and quality implications. German Journal of Veterinary Research, 5(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.51585/gjvr.2025.1.0125

Singh, A. K., Mazumder, R., and Dogra, A. (2026). Development of Novel Approaches for the Treatment of Cutaneous Candidiasis. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 32(17), 1293–1307. https://doi.org/10.2174/0113816128379927250807064636

Singh, R., Kakati, B., and Mittal, G. (2025). Trends and Characteristics of Candidemia in Patients With Suspected Sepsis: A Two‐Year Retrospective Study From a Tertiary Hospital in Uttarakhand. Cureus, 17(6), e86241. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.86241

Song, J., Yang, X., Liu, X., and Li, J. (2025). Gut bacteria: protective mediators, pathogenic contributors and novel therapeutic targets in Candida albicans infections. Gut Pathogens, 17(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099‐025‐00755‐8

Tafakori, V. (2022). Evaluation of phytochemical characterizations and antifungal potency of aqueous and methanolic extracts of Tulipa biflora. Nova Biologica Reperta, 8(4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.52547/nbr.8.4.297

Tita, G. V. T., Serban, D. E., Chiperi, L. E., Fogas, C. R., Medan, S. A., and Tantau, V. M. (2025). Exclusive enteral nutrition in Crohn's disease paediatric patients: from clinical remission to transmural healing. Medicine and Pharmacy Reports, 98(3), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr‐2900

Turan, D., Habip, Z., Odabaşı, H., Dömbekçi, E., Gündoğuş, N., Özmen, M., and Aksaray, S. (2025). Antifungal Susceptibilities of Rare Yeast Isolates. Journal of Fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 11(9), 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof11090645

Unalan‐Altintop, T., Jansson, K., and Özenci, V. (2025). Performance of Short‐Term Culture and Direct MALDI‐TOF MS for Identification of Candida Species From Blood Cultures. APMIS: Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica, et Immunologica Scandinavica, 133(8), e70063. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.70063

Visinoni, F., Royle, W., Scholey, R., Hu, Y., Timouma, S., Zeef, L., Louis, E. J., and Delneri, D. (2024). Impact of inter‐species hybridisation on antifungal drug response in the Saccharomyces genus. BMC Genomics, 25(1), 1165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864‐024‐11009‐3

Wanigasekara, D., Wickramasinghe, S., Wijayaratne, G., and Napagoda, M. (2025). Isolation, identification, and characterisation of Candida species isolated from oral specimens of cancer patients and healthy individuals; a cohort study in Galle District, Sri Lanka. BMC Oral Health, 25(1), 1842. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903‐025‐07258‐7

Yao, A. K., Amien, G. F. K., Assi‐Clair, B. J., Koné, N., Koné, M. K., Bethune, K., Maraval, I., Chochois, V., Meile, J., Boulanger, R., and Guéhi, S. T. (2025). Prospective Yeast Species with Enzymatic, Aromatic, and Antifungal Applications Isolated from Cocoa Fermentation in Various Producing Areas in Côte d'Ivoire. Microbiology Research, 16(12), 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres16120256

Yıbar, A., Altaki, A., Akay, Ç. P., and Sığ, A. K. (2024). Investigation of mold and yeast contaminations in cheese samples. Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine, 43(2), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.30782/jrvm.1513569

Youn, J. W., Hahn, J. W., and Yang, H. R. (2025). Comparison of Duodenal Strictures Between Crohn's and Non‐Crohn's Diseases in Children. Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, 28(5), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.5223/pghn.2025.28.5.280

Yu, S., Ge, X., Xu, H., Tan, B., Tian, B., Shi, Y., Dai, Y., Li, Y., Hu, S., and Qian, J. (2023). Gut microbiome and mycobiome in inflammatory bowel disease patients with Clostridioides difficile infection. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 13, 1129043. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2023.1129043

Protists

None.

Algae

None.

Viruses used for plant protection

Alphaflexiviridae

Aldrighi, L. B., and Da Rosa Jardim, V. M. (2025). Risco de suicídio em profissionais de enfermagem: um estudo transversal em hospitais universitários no extremo sul do Brasil. Revista Brasileira De Saúde Ocupacional, 50. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317‐6369/04724pt2025v50e16

Hajikolaei, M. R. H., Paraei, S. Y., Shapouri, M. R. S. A., Nouri, M., Beheshtifar, F., and Şahinduran, Ş. (2025). Relationship between bovine leukaemia virus (BLV) infection and shedding provirus from milk in cows. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 57(8), 401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250‐025‐04653‐8

Juřičková, L., Beran, L., and Kment, P. (2025). Non‐marine molluscs of the island of Brač (Croatia) – when can the island be considered explored? Natura Croatica, 34(1), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.20302/nc.2025.34.5

Koinuma, S., Goto, M., Saito, J., Murashima, A., and Takeshita, T. (2025). Transfer of amenamevir into breast milk in breastfeeding patients with recurrent herpes simplex: Study protocol for a single‐arm, open‐label study. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 13, 1551335. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2025.1551335

Nancarrow, N., Rodoni, B., Lam, S. K., and Trębicki, P. (2025). Patterns of mixed virus infections: a 3‐year study of symptomatic cereal and grass hosts in Australia. Crop and Pasture Science, 76(2). https://doi.org/10.1071/cp24283

Rabe, I. B., Hills, S. L., Haussig, J. M., Walker, A. T., Dos Santos, T., San Martin, J. L., Gutierrez, G., Mendez‐Rico, J., Rodriguez, J. C., Elizondo‐Lopez, D., Gonzalez‐Escobar, G., Chanda, E., Al Eryani, S. M., Kodama, C., Yajima, A., Kakkar, M., Kato, M., Wijesinghe, P. R., Samaraweera, S., Brindle, H., … Rojas, D. P. (2025). A Review of the Recent Epidemiology of Zika Virus Infection. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 112(5), 1026–1035. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.24‐0420

Wang, Z., Huang, L., Zhang, X., Zhang, X., Huang, L., Zhu, X., Long, X., Cao, D., and Li, Y. (2025). Clinical presentation of Oropouche virus infection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 19(4), e0012962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0012962

Wilson, J. R., Willie, K. J., Stewart, L. R., Redinbaugh, M. G., and Ohlson, E. W. (2025). Characterization of Three Resistance‐Breaking Isolates of Sugarcane Mosaic Virus from Rwanda and Implications for Maize Lethal Necrosis. Phytopathology, 115(7), 901–911. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO‐07‐24‐0227‐R

Potyviridae

None.

Baculoviridae

Mattia, A., Huditz, H. I., van Oers, M. M., and Ros, V. I. D. (2025). Iflaviruses in arthropods: when small is mighty. Insect Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744‐7917.70177

APPENDIX E. References selected from the ELS exercise for Bacillus thuringiensis (reply to ToR 3)

Allende, A., Alvarez‐Ordóñez, A., Bortolaia, V., Bover‐Cid, S., De Cesare, A., and Dohmen, W. (2025). Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 21: Suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2024. EFSA Journal, 23, 9169. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9169

Alvarez, F., Arena, M., Auteri, D., Borroto, J., Brancato, A., and Carrasco Cabrera, L. (2021). Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain ABTS‐351. EFSA Journal, 19, e06879. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6879

Barakat, S., Kim, H., Dankar, R., and Hewlett, C. (2024). Bacillus thuringiensis Bacteremia in a 30‐Year‐Old Intravenous Drug User: A Report of a Rare Case. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.71704

Barmettler, K., Boss, S., Biggel, M., and Stephan, R. (2025). Occurrence of Salmonella and presumptive Bacillus cereus in sesame products from Swiss retail stores. Italian Journal of Food Safety, 14, 12691. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijfs.2025.12691

Barmettler, K., Boss, S., Biggel, M., and Stephan, R. (2025). Occurrence of Bacillus cereus group in ready‐to‐eat plant‐based foods at retail level. Food Control, 162, 110370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.110370

Carroll, L. M., Wiedmann, M., and Kovac, J. (2020). Proposal of a taxonomic nomenclature for the Bacillus cereus group which reconciles genomic definitions of bacterial species with clinical and industrial phenotypes. MBio, 11, 10–1128. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00034‐20

ECHA. (2016). Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki, serotype 3a3b, Strain ABTS‐351. Accessed October 24, 2023. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/6ae097f9‐4a0a‐674a‐005b‐9f1110ac6007.

EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), Allende, A., Alvarez‐Ordóñez, A., Bortolaia, V., Bover‐Cid, S., De Cesare, A., Dohmen, W., Guillier, L., Jacxsens, L., Nauta, M., Mughini‐Gras, L., Ottoson, J., Peixe, L., Perez‐Rodriguez, F., Skandamis, P., Suffredini, E., Cocconcelli, P. S., Salvador Fernández Escámez, P., Prieto Maradona, M., Querol, A., Sijtsma, L., Suarez, J. E., Chemaly, M., Sundh, I., Barizzone, F., Dastouet, J., Doyle, N., Correia, S., and Herman, L. (2025). Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 22: Suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2025. EFSA Journal, 23, e9510. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9510

Felten, A., Le Strat‐Walton, A., Pairaud, S., Laville, J., Firmesse, O., and Bonis, M. (2026). Occurrence and identification of Bacillus thuringiensis in fresh vegetables and fruits in France. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2025.111477

Felten, A., Le Strat‐Walton, A., Pairaud, S., Laville, J., Firmesse, O., and Bonis, M. (2026). Occurrence and identification of Bacillus thuringiensis in fresh vegetables and fruits in France. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 445, 111477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2025.111477

Ghatage, A., Nanaware, J., Sonavale, R., and Sawangikar, MS. (2024). Biological control agents in agriculture: assessing their potential as vectors for human pathogens. Journal of Entomological Research, 48, 853–859. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974‐4576.2024.00158.4

González, M. A., Chaskopoulou, A., Georgiou, L., Frontera, E., Cáceres, F., and Masia, M. (2024). Mosquito management strategies in European rice fields: Environmental and public health perspectives. Journal of Environmental Management, 370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122534

Iutynska, H. O., and Yamborko, N. A. (2024). Biological plant protection in the European Union (in Germany as an example). Mikrobiology Zh, 86, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.15407/microbiolj86.03.076

Lin, Y., Liu, L., Lu, S., Fan, L., Hu, H., and Wang, X. (2024). Genomic Insights into the Pathogenicity and Drug‐Resistance of a Bacillus cereus Isolated from Human Teeth. Infection and Drug Resistance, 17, 3623–3635. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S477637

Maktabdar, M., Hansen, L. T., Wemmenhove, E., Gkogka, E., and Dalgaard, P. (2024). Prevalence, Characteristics, and Selection of Bacillus cereus Subgroups from Dairy Products for Challenge Testing and Predictive Model Development. Journal of Food Protection, 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100367

Medrano‐Zapata, E. M., Becerra‐López, J. L., Almaguer‐Sierra, P., De la Peña, C. G., Barrientos‐Lozano, L., and Flores‐Gracia, J. (2024). Blood bacterial microbiota of the Texas tortoise, Gopherus berlandieri, in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Revista Mexicana Biodiversity, 95, 5365. https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2024.95.5365

Mozhaitseva, K., Pairaud, S., Firmesse, O., and Bonis, M. (2026). Population structure of Bacillus cereus sensu lato associated with foodborne outbreaks in France between 2004 and 2023. Food and Microbiology, 133, 104882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2025.104882.

Mozhaitseva, K., Pairaud, S., Firmesse, O., and Bonis, M. (2026). Population structure of Bacillus cereus sensu lato associated with foodborne outbreaks in France between 2004 and 2023. Food Microbiology, 133, 104882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2025.104882

Ning, X., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Liu, Y., Wang, L., and Chen, Z. (2024). Safety evaluation of Bacillus thuringiensis fermentation products in mice. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 145, 105623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105623

Padilha, R. M. O., da Silva Gomes, S., da Silva, J. F., Silva, R. P. F., de Andrade, A. L. C., and dos Santos Magnabosco, A. R. (2024). Assessment of toxicity of pyriproxyfen, Bacillus thuringiensis, and malathion and their mixtures used for mosquito control on embryo‐larval development and behavior of zebrafish. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 42672–42685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356‐024‐33955‐x

Saha, S., Mondal, A., Bag, S., Ghosh, S., Mandal, A. H., and Saha, N. C. (2026). Are biopesticides really safe? Impacts on gut microbiota and intestinal health in freshwater fish. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 276, 104727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2025.104727

Salehi Jouzani, G., Sharafi, R., Argentel‐Martínez, L., Peñuelas‐Rubio, O., Ozkan, C., and Incegul, B. (2025). Novel insights into Bacillus thuringiensis: Beyond its role as a bioinsecticide. Research Microbiology, 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2024.104264

Shiekh Suliman, N., Talaei‐Hassanloui, R., Abachi, H., Zarei, S., and Osdaghi, E. (2025). Taxonomic refinement of Bacillus thuringiensis. Frontiers of Microbiology, 16, 1518307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1518307.

Shiekh Suliman, N., Talaei‐Hassanloui, R., Abachi, H., Zarei, S., and Osdaghi, E. (2025). Taxonomic refinement of Bacillus thuringiensis. Frontiers in Microbiology, 16, 1518307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1518307

Tamura, H. (2004). Bacterial Pesticides: Mechanism of Action, Possibility of Food Contamination, and Residue Analysis Using MS. Journal of Pesticides Science, 49, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1584/JPESTICS.D24‐006

Tresch, S., Biggel, M., Cernela, N., and Stephan, R. (2025). Occurrence of Selected Foodborne Pathogens on Frozen Berries Collected at Retail Level in Switzerland. Journal of Food Protection, 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100604.

Tresch, S., Biggel, M., Cernela, N., and Stephan, R. (2025). Occurrence of Selected Foodborne Pathogens on Frozen Berries Collected at Retail Level in Switzerland. Journal of Food Protection, 88(10), 100604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100604

Van Laere, Y., Fraiture, M. A., Gobbo, A., De Keersmaecker, S. C. J., Marchal, K., Roosens, N. H. C., and Vanneste, K. (2025). Assessing the authenticity and purity of a commercial Bacillus thuringiensis bioinsecticide through whole genome sequencing and metagenomics approaches. Frontiers in Microbiology, 16, 1532788. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1532788

Wang, C., Zhao, R., Yang, W., Jiang, W., Tang, H., and Du, S. (2025). Cell‐to‐Cell Natural Transformation Mediated Efficient Plasmid Transfer Between Bacillus Species. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26020621.

Wang, C., Zhao, R., Yang, W., Jiang, W., Tang, H., Du, S., and Chen, X. (2025). Cell‐to‐Cell Natural Transformation Mediated Efficient Plasmid Transfer Between Bacillus Species. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26(2), 621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26020621

APPENDIX F. Updated list of QPS Status recommended microorganisms in support of EFSA risk assessments

The list of QPS status recommended microorganisms (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2026) is being maintained in accordance with the mandate of the BIOHAZ Panel. Possible additions to this list are included approximately every 6 months, with this Panel Statement (24) adopted on 3 June of 2026.

These additions are published as updates to the Scientific Opinion (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2026); the updated QPS list is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1146566 (the link opens at the latest version of the QPS list, and also shows the versions associated to each Panel Statement).

APPENDIX G. Microbial species as notified to EFSA, received between October 2025 and March 2026 (reply to ToR 1)

The overall list of microorganisms being notified to EFSA in the context of a technical dossier to EFSA Units (for intentional use directly or as sources of food and feed additives, food enzymes and plant protection products for safety assessment), is kept updated in accordance with the mandate of the BIOHAZ Panel and can be found in https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607183.

The list was updated with the notifications received between October 2025 and March 2026, as shown in the Table below.

Species	EFSA risk assessment area	Category regulated product	Intended usage	EFSA question No a	Previous QPS status of the respective TU b	Assessed in this statement? Yes or no
Bacteria
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme alpha‐amylase. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00666	Yes	No
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: fungicide in a variety of crops. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2024‐00413	Yes	No
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (new Bacillus velezensis)	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: against mould in strawberries and grapes. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2024‐00648	Yes	No
Bacillus clausii	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser for cats and dogs. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00614	Yes	No
Bacillus licheniformis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme beta‐fructosyltransferase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00632	Yes	No
Bacillus licheniformis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme subtilisin. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00632	Yes	No
Bacillus licheniformis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme protein‐glutamine glutaminase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00638	Yes	No
Bacillus licheniformis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme alpha‐amylase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00650	Yes	No
Bacillus licheniformis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00680	Yes	No
Bacillus licheniformis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of the food enzyme beta‐amylase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00682	Yes	No
Bacillus licheniformis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme alpha‐amylase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00688	Yes	No
Bacillus paralicheniformis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00615	Yes	No
Bacillus paralicheniformis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme subtilisin. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00128	Yes	No
Bacillus subtilis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Digestibility enhancer: production of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00092	Yes	No
Bacillus subtilis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme trypsin. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00585	Yes	No
Bacillus subtilis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme bacillolysin. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00589	Yes	No
Bacillus subtilis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of maltogenic amylase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00115	Yes	No
Bacillus subtilis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser for chickens. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00070	Yes	No
Bacillus subtilis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00126	Yes	No
Bacillus thuringiensis	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: controlling plant nematode, insect and fungal pests in tomato, potato and corn. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2023‐00825	No	Yes
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Tenebrionis	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: insecticide on potatoes. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2024‐00538	No	Yes
Bacillus velezensis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00160	Yes	No
Bacillus velezensis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00160	Yes	No
Bacillus velezensis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00160	Yes	No
Bacillus velezensis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00575	Yes	No
Bacillus velezensis	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: fungicide in viticulture, orcharding and horticulture. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00463	Yes	No
Bacillus velezensis	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: fungicide in grape, potato, tomato, strawberry. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00450	Yes	No
Companilactobacillus pabuli	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Other zotechnical additive for chickens for fattening. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00731	No	Yes
Companilactobacillus pabuli	Feed additives	Technological additives	Silage additive. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00732	No	Yes
Companilactobacillus pabuli	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Other zotechnical additive for weaned piglets. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00733	No	Yes
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Novel foods	Novel foods	To over‐express the 6′‐sialyllactose (6’‐SL) sodium salt synthesis pathway and introduce genetic modifications to produce higher yields of 6’‐SL. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00527	Yes	No
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Feed additives	Nutritional additives and Sensory additives	Sensory (flavouring compounds) and nutritional additives (amino acids, their salts and analogues). Production of monosodium L‐glutamate	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00545	Yes	No
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues: production of the amino acid L‐ isoleucine. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00654	Yes	No
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Feed additives	Nutritional additives and Sensory additives	Sensory (flavouring compounds) and nutritional additives (amino acids, their salts and analogues). Production of L‐lysine monohydrochloride, liquid L‐lysine and L‐lysine. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00714	Yes	No
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Feed additives	Nutritional additives and Sensory additives	Sensory (flavouring compounds) and nutritional additives (amino acids, their salts and analogues). Production of L‐citrulline. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00715	Yes	No
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues: production of lysine monohydrochloride and L‐lysine sulphate. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00006	Yes	No
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues: production of L‐threonine. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00008	Yes	No
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues: production of L‐tryptophan. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00010	Yes	No
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues: production of L‐histidine. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00014	Yes	No
Ensifer adhaerens	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Vitamins, pro‐vitamins and chemically well‐defined substances having similar effect: production of cyanocobalamine. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00617	No	Yes
Enterococcus lactis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA ‐Q‐2025‐00695	No	Yes
Escherichia coli	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues: production of L‐valine ‐ 3. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00500	No	No
Escherichia coli	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00178	No	No
Escherichia coli	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues: production of L‐tryptophan. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00007	No	No
Escherichia coli	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Amino acids, their salts and analogues: production of L‐tryptophan. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00011	No	No
Escherichia coli	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme D‐psicose 3‐epimerase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00642	No	No
Escherichia coli	Novel foods	Novel foods	Production of 2′‐focusllactose. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00727	No	No
Hyphomicrobium denitrificans	Novel foods	Novel foods	Food supplement: production of a pyrroloquinoline quinone disodium salt. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00581	No	Yes
Lacticaseibacillus paracasei	Feed additives	Technological additives	Silage additive. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00003	Yes	No
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA ‐Q‐2025‐00695	Yes	No
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Other zootechnical additive for chickens for fattening. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00731	Yes	No
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus	Feed additives	Technological additives	Silage additive. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00732	Yes	No
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Other zootechnical additive for weaned piglets. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00733	Yes	No
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum	Feed additives	Technological additives	Silage additive. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00002	Yes	No
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum	Feed additives	Technological additives	Silage additive. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00086	Yes	No
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum	Feed additives	Technological additives	Silage additive. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00179	Yes	No
Lactobacillus hilgardii	Novel foods	Novel foods	Production of gamma‐aminobutyric acid. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00641	Yes	No
Lactococcus cremoris	Feed additives		New species which was previously a subspecies, part of a QPS status species (Lactococcus lactis)		No	Yes
Lentilactobacillus diolivorans	Feed additives	Technological additives	Silage additive. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00028	Yes	No
Listeria innocua	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food additive	Production of food additive Listex P100 (Phageguard L). Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00172	No	Yes
Microbacterium foliorum	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme D‐psicose 3‐epimerase. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00701	No	Yes
Pseudomonas protegens	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: fungicide on seed potatoes, flowers, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, eggplant, lettuce and cabbage. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2023‐00770	No	Yes
Streptomyces griseofuscus	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: fungicide for fruit, vegetable and cereal crops. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00172	No	No
Streptomyces mobaraensis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme transglutaminase. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00163	No	No
Weizmannia faecalis	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00139	No	Yes
Xanthomonas campestris	Feed additives	Technological additives	Stabiliser and thickeners: production of xanthan gum. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00005	Yes	No
Filamentous fungi
Aspergillus fijiensis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme beta‐fructosyltransferase. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00600	No	No
Aspergillus niger	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme trehalase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q2025‐00662	No	No
Aspergillus niger	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme chymosin. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00145	No	No
Aspergillus oryzae	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme glucose oxidase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00582	No	No
Aspergillus oryzae	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme oryzin. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00681	No	No
Beauveria bassiana	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: insecticide on tomato and other crops. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2023‐00179	No	No
Beauveria bassiana	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: insecticide on grassland, ornamentals. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2023‐00237	No	No
Beauveria bassiana	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: insecticide on ornamental palm trees. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2024‐00388	No	No
Beauveria bassiana	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: insecticide on banana plants and ornamental palm trees. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2024‐00389	No	No
Fusarium commune	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme phospholipase A1. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00643	No	No
Penicillium crustosum	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme acylglycerol lipase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00602	No	No
Thermothelomyces heterothallica	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme chymosin. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00724	No	No
Trichoderma reesei	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Digestibility enhancers: production of 6‐phytase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00576	No	No
Trichoderma reesei	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Digestibility enhancers: production of endo 1,4‐beta‐xylanase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00696	No	No
Trichoderma reesei	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Digestibility enhancers: production of endo‐1,3(4)‐beta glucanase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00696	No	No
Trichoderma reesei	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme cellulase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00591	No	No
Trichoderma reesei	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzymes cellulase, beta‐glucosidase and cellobiohydrolase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00593	No	No
Trichoderma reesei	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme cellulase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00679	No	No
Trichoderma reesei	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Digestibility enhancers: production of 6‐phytase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00558	No	No
Trichoderma reesei	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme cellulase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00679	No	No
Verticillium nonalfalfae	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: herbicide for the control of Ailanthus altissima. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2023‐00817	No	No
Yeasts
Kluyveromyces lactis	Novel foods	Novel foods	Food supplement: production of 2′‐fucosyllactose (2′‐FL). GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00537	Yes	No
Kluyveromyces lactis	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme chymosin. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00520	Yes	No
Komagataella phaffii	Feed additives	Nutritional additives	Vitamins, pro‐vitamins and chemically well‐defined substances having similar effect: production of 25‐hydroxycholecalciferol. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00013	Yes	No
Komagataella phaffii	Feed additives	Technological additives	Substances for reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00124	Yes	No
Komagataella phaffii	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme glucose oxidase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00652	Yes	No
Komagataella phaffii	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food enzyme	Production of food enzyme alpha‐amylase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00176	Yes	No
Komagataella phaffii	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Digestibility enhancers: production of 6‐phytase. GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00017	Yes	No
Papiliotrema terrestris	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: fungicide in strawberry and grapes. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2023‐00792	No	Yes
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser for dogs and canidae. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00026	Yes	No
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Food enzymes, food additives and flavourings	Food additive	Production of food additive Beetroot Red, betanin (E 162). GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2026‐00001	Yes	No
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Feed additives	Zootechnical additives	Gut flora stabiliser. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00625	Yes	No
Viruses
Baculoviruses against Adoxophyes orana	Plant protection products	Plant protection products	Active substance in a plant protection product: use in pome fruit. Non GMM.	EFSA‐Q‐2023‐00566	Yes	No

^a To find more details on specific applications please access the EFSA website – OpenEFSA at https://open.efsa.europa.eu/questions.

^b Included in the QPS list as adopted in December 2025 (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2026).

^c Different strains from same species in the same application.

EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards) , Allende, A. , Alvarez‐Ordóñez, A. , Bortolaia, V. , Bover‐Cid, S. , De Cesare, A. , Dohmen, W. , Guillier, L. , Jacxsens, L. , Nauta, M. , Mughini‐Gras, L. , Ottoson, J. , Peixe, L. , Perez‐Rodriguez, F. , Skandamis, P. , Suffredini, E. , Chemaly, M. , Cocconcelli, P. S. , Fernández Escámez, P. S. , … Herman, L. (2026). Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 24: Suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2026. EFSA Journal, 24(7), e10155. 10.2903/j.efsa.2026.10155