Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26035837›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Fecal Microbiota in Healthy Subjects Following Omnivore, Vegetarian and Vegan Diets: Culturable Populations and rRNA DGGE Profiling.

Ilario Ferrocino, Raffaella Di Cagno, Maria De Angelis, Silvia Turroni, Lucia Vannini, Elena Bancalari, Kalliopi Rantsiou, Gianluigi Cardinali, Erasmo Neviani, Luca Cocolin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Ilario FerrocinoDepartment of Agricultural, Forest and Food Science, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini n°2, 10095, Grugliasco, Italy.
Raffaella Di CagnoDepartment of Soil, Plant and Food Science, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Via Amendola 165/a, 70126, Bari, Italy.
Maria De AngelisDepartment of Soil, Plant and Food Science, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Via Amendola 165/a, 70126, Bari, Italy.
Silvia TurroniDepartment of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Via Belmeloro 6, 40126, Bologna, Italy.
Lucia VanniniDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, viale Fanin 50, 40127, Bologna, Italy.
Elena BancalariDepartment of Food Science, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 49/A, 43124, Parma, Italy.
Kalliopi RantsiouDepartment of Agricultural, Forest and Food Science, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini n°2, 10095, Grugliasco, Italy.
Gianluigi CardinaliDepartment of Pharmaceutrical Sciences Università of Perugia, Via Borgo 20 Giugno, 74 06123, Perugia, Italy.
Erasmo NevianiDepartment of Food Science, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 49/A, 43124, Parma, Italy.
Luca CocolinDepartment of Agricultural, Forest and Food Science, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini n°2, 10095, Grugliasco, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, the fecal microbiota of 153 healthy volunteers, recruited from four different locations in Italy, has been studied by coupling viable counts, on different microbiological media, with ribosomal RNA Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (rRNA-DGGE). The volunteers followed three different diets, namely omnivore, ovo-lacto-vegetarian and vegan. The results obtained from culture-dependent and -independent methods have underlined a high level of similarity of the viable fecal microbiota for the three investigated diets. The rRNA DGGE profiles were very complex and comprised a total number of bands that varied from 67 to 64 for the V3 and V9 regions of the 16S rRNA gene, respectively. Only a few bands were specific in/of all three diets, and the presence of common taxa associated with the dietary habits was found. As far as the viable counts are concerned, the high similarity of the fecal microbiota was once again confirmed, with only a few of the investigated groups showing significant differences. Interestingly, the samples grouped differently, according to the recruitment site, thus highlighting a higher impact of the food consumed by the volunteers in the specific geographical locations than that of the type of diet. Lastly, it should be mentioned that the fecal microbiota DGGE profiles obtained from the DNA were clearly separated from those produced using RNA, thus underlining a difference between the total and viable populations in the fecal samples.

Indexed as

DietDiet, VeganDiet, VegetarianMicrobiotaAdolescentAdultDenaturing Gradient Gel ElectrophoresisFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26035837
PMCPMC4452701

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.