Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25905018›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2015

Resistant starch diet induces change in the swine microbiome and a predominance of beneficial bacterial populations.

Özgün C O Umu, Jeremy A Frank, Jonatan U Fangel, Marije Oostindjer, Carol Souza da Silva, Elizabeth J Bolhuis, Guido Bosch, William G T Willats, Phillip B Pope, Dzung B Diep

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 156 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Özgün C O UmuDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Chr. Magnus Falsens Vei 1, P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Ås Akershus, Norway.
Jeremy A FrankDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Chr. Magnus Falsens Vei 1, P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Ås Akershus, Norway.
Jonatan U FangelDepartment of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-1871 Denmark.
Marije OostindjerDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Chr. Magnus Falsens Vei 1, P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Ås Akershus, Norway.
Carol Souza da SilvaAdaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands ; Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Elizabeth J BolhuisAdaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Guido BoschAnimal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands.
William G T WillatsDepartment of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-1871 Denmark.
Phillip B PopeDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Chr. Magnus Falsens Vei 1, P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Ås Akershus, Norway.
Dzung B DiepDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Chr. Magnus Falsens Vei 1, P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Ås Akershus, Norway.
Norwegian University of Life Sciences · NOWageningen University & Research · NLUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDietary fibers contribute to health and physiology primarily via the fermentative actions of the host's gut microbiome. Physicochemical properties such as solubility, fermentability, viscosity, and gel-forming ability differ among fiber types and are known to affect metabolism. However, few studies have focused on how they influence the gut microbiome and how these interactions influence host health. The aim of this study is to investigate how the gut microbiome of growing pigs responds to diets containing gel-forming alginate and fermentable resistant starch and to predict important interactions and functional changes within the microbiota.

resultsNine growing pigs (3-month-old), divided into three groups, were fed with either a control, alginate-, or resistant starch-containing diet (CON, ALG, or RS), and fecal samples were collected over a 12-week period. SSU (small subunit) rDNA amplicon sequencing data was annotated to assess the gut microbiome, whereas comprehensive microarray polymer profiling (CoMPP) of digested material was employed to evaluate feed degradation. Gut microbiome structure variation was greatest in pigs fed with resistant starch, where notable changes included the decrease in alpha diversity and increase in relative abundance of Lachnospiraceae- and Ruminococcus-affiliated phylotypes. Imputed function was predicted to vary significantly in pigs fed with resistant starch and to a much lesser extent with alginate; however, the key pathways involving degradation of starch and other plant polysaccharides were predicted to be unaffected. The change in relative abundance levels of basal dietary components (plant cell wall polysaccharides and proteins) over time was also consistent irrespective of diet; however, correlations between the dietary components and phylotypes varied considerably in the different diets.

conclusionsResistant starch-containing diet exhibited the strongest structural variation compared to the alginate-containing diet. This variation gave rise to a microbiome that contains phylotypes affiliated with metabolically reputable taxonomic lineages. Despite the significant microbiome structural shifts that occurred from resistant starch-containing diet, functional redundancy is seemingly apparent with respect to the microbiome's capacity to degrade starch and other dietary polysaccharides, one of the key stages in digestion.

Indexed as

16S rRNA geneAlginateBacterial communityGrowing pigsGut microbiotaResistant starch

Identifiers

PMID25905018
PMCPMC4405844
OpenAlexW2101909300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.