Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25988374›Full record

ReviewMolecular nutrition & food research2015

Mind the gap-deficits in our knowledge of aspects impacting the bioavailability of phytochemicals and their metabolites--a position paper focusing on carotenoids and polyphenols.

Torsten Bohn, Gordon J McDougall, Amparo Alegría, Marie Alminger, Eva Arrigoni, Anna-Marja Aura, Catarina Brito, Antonio Cilla, Sedef N El, Sibel Karakaya and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular nutrition & food research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 251 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 8 countries.

Torsten BohnEnvironmental Research and Innovation Department, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Belvaux, Luxembourg.
Gordon J McDougallThe James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Amparo AlegríaNutrition and Food Science Area, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Valencia, Av. Vicente Andrés Estellés s/n, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain.
Marie AlmingerDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Eva ArrigoniAgroscope, Institute for Food Sciences (IFS), Wädenswil, Switzerland.
Anna-Marja AuraVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland.
Catarina BritoIBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.
Antonio CillaNutrition and Food Science Area, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Valencia, Av. Vicente Andrés Estellés s/n, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain.
Sedef N ElEge University, Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering Department, Izmir, Turkey.
Sibel KarakayaEge University, Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering Department, Izmir, Turkey.
Marie C Martínez-CuestaInstituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Alimentación CIAL (CSIC-UAM), Madrid, Spain.
Claudia N SantosIBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.
Ege University · TRUniversitat de València · ESAgroscope · CHChalmers University of Technology · SEInstituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica · PTJames Hutton Institute · GBLuxembourg Institute of Science and Technology · LUUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid · ESUniversidade Nova de Lisboa · PTVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various secondary plant metabolites or phytochemicals, including polyphenols and carotenoids, have been associated with a variety of health benefits, such as reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and several types of cancer, most likely due to their involvement in ameliorating inflammation and oxidative stress. However, discrepancies exist between their putative effects when comparing observational and intervention studies, especially when using pure compounds. These discrepancies may in part be explained by differences in intake levels and their bioavailability. Prior to exerting their bioactivity, these compounds must be made bioavailable, and considerable differences may arise due to their matrix release, changes during digestion, uptake, metabolism, and biodistribution, even before considering dose- and host-related factors. Though many insights have been gained on factors affecting secondary plant metabolite bioavailability, many gaps still exist in our knowledge. In this position paper, we highlight several major gaps in our understanding of phytochemical bioavailability, including effects of food processing, changes during digestion, involvement of cellular transporters in influx/efflux through the gastrointestinal epithelium, changes during colonic fermentation, and their phase I and phase II metabolism following absorption.

Indexed as

Biological AvailabilityCarotenoidsColonFood HandlingGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansIntestinal AbsorptionIntestine, SmallPhytochemicalsPolyphenolsSolubilityTissue DistributionCarotenoidsPhytochemicalsPolyphenolsBiotransformationFood processingMicrobiotaMixed dietTransporters

Identifiers

PMID25988374
PMCPMC5033009
OpenAlexW1617825834

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.