Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26520109›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2016

Assessment of the Intestinal Barrier with Five Different Permeability Tests in Healthy C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ Mice.

Valentina Volynets, Astrid Reichold, Gyöngyi Bárdos, Andreas Rings, André Bleich, Stephan C Bischoff

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Gut-liver axis: barriers and functional circuits.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Valentina VolynetsDepartment of Nutritional Medicine, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 12, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany.
Astrid ReicholdDepartment of Nutritional Medicine, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 12, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany.
Gyöngyi BárdosDepartment of Nutritional Medicine, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 12, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany.
Andreas RingsDepartment of Nutritional Medicine, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 12, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany.
André BleichInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Stephan C BischoffDepartment of Nutritional Medicine, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 12, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany. bischoff.stephan@uni-hohenheim.de.
University of Hohenheim · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntestinal permeability is thought to be of major relevance for digestive and nutrition-related diseases, and therefore has been studied in numerous mouse models of disease. However, it is unclear which tools are the preferable ones, and how normal values should be defined.

aimsTo compare different in vivo permeability tests in healthy mice of commonly used genetic backgrounds.

methodsWe assessed the intestinal barrier in male and female C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ mice of different ages, using four orally administered permeability markers, FITC-dextran 4000 (FITC-D4000) and ovalbumin (OVA) measured in plasma, and polyethylene glycol (PEG) and lactulose/mannitol (Lac/Man) measured in urine, and by assessing lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in portal vein plasma.

resultsAfter gavage, FITC-D4000, OVA, Lac/Man, and PEG400, but not PEG4000, were detectable in plasma or urine. Female mice tended to have a higher permeability according to the FITC-D4000, OVA, and PEG400 tests, but the Lac/Man ratio was higher in males. No significant differences between the two mouse strains of young and old mice were observed except for mannitol recovery, which was higher in BALB/cJ mice compared to C57BL/6J mice (p < 0.05). Virtually no LPS was detected in healthy mice. For all markers, normal values have been defined based on 5th-95th percentile ranges of our data.

conclusionSelected oral permeability tests, such as FITC-D4000, OVA, PEG400, and Lac/Man, as well as LPS measurements in portal vein plasma, could be suitable for the evaluation of the intestinal barrier in mice, if used in a standardized way.

Indexed as

PermeabilityAnimalsDextransFemaleFluorescein-5-isothiocyanateIntestinal MucosaLactuloseLipopolysaccharidesMaleMannitolMiceMice, Inbred BALB CMice, Inbred C57BLOvalbuminPolyethylene GlycolsPortal VeinDextransFluorescein-5-isothiocyanatefluorescein isothiocyanate dextranLactuloseLipopolysaccharidesMannitolOvalbuminPolyethylene GlycolsFITC-dextranIntestinal permeabilityLactuloseLipopolysaccharideOvalbuminPolyethylene glycol

Identifiers

PMID26520109
OpenAlexW2227319970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.