Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27100182›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Intestinal Microbiota and Microbial Metabolites Are Changed in a Pig Model Fed a High-Fat/Low-Fiber or a Low-Fat/High-Fiber Diet.

Sonja N Heinritz, Eva Weiss, Meike Eklund, Tobias Aumiller, Sandrine Louis, Andreas Rings, Sabine Messner, Amélia Camarinha-Silva, Jana Seifert, Stephan C Bischoff and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.8field-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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 173 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Translational animal science · 2024
    Article

28 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sonja N HeinritzInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Eva WeissInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Meike EklundInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Tobias AumillerInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Sandrine LouisDepartment of Nutritional Medicine, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Andreas RingsDepartment of Nutritional Medicine, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Sabine MessnerInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Amélia Camarinha-SilvaInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Jana SeifertInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Stephan C BischoffDepartment of Nutritional Medicine, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Rainer MosenthinInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
University of Hohenheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intestinal microbiota and its metabolites appear to be an important factor for gastrointestinal function and health. However, research is still needed to further elaborate potential relationships between nutrition, gut microbiota and host's health by means of a suitable animal model. The present study examined the effect of two different diets on microbial composition and activity by using the pig as a model for humans. Eight pigs were equally allotted to two treatments, either fed a low-fat/high-fiber (LF), or a high-fat/low-fiber (HF) diet for 7 weeks. Feces were sampled at day 7 of every experimental week. Diet effects on fecal microbiota were assessed using quantitative real-time PCR, DNA fingerprinting and metaproteomics. Furthermore, fecal short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) profiles and ammonia concentrations were determined. Gene copy numbers of lactobacilli, bifidobacteria (P<0.001) and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (P<0.05) were higher in the LF pigs, while Enterobacteriaceae were more abundant in the HF pigs (P<0.001). Higher numbers of proteins affiliated to Enterobacteriaceae were also present in the HF samples. Proteins for polysaccharide breakdown did almost exclusively originate from Prevotellaceae. Total and individual fecal SCFA concentrations were higher for pigs of the LF treatment (P<0.05), whereas fecal ammonia concentrations did not differ between treatments (P>0.05). Results provide evidence that beginning from the start of the experiment, the LF diet stimulated beneficial bacteria and SCFA production, especially butyrate (P<0.05), while the HF diet fostered those bacterial groups which have been associated with a negative impact on health conditions. These findings correspond to results in humans and might strengthen the hypothesis that the response of the porcine gut microbiota to a specific dietary modulation is in support of using the pig as suitable animal model for humans to assess diet-gut-microbiota interactions. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD003447.

Indexed as

Diet, Fat-RestrictedDiet, High-FatGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsBifidobacteriumButyratesDietary FiberDNA, BacterialDNA FingerprintingFaecalibacteriumFatty Acids, VolatileFecesGene DosageLactobacillusMaleModels, AnimalButyratesDietary FiberDNA, BacterialFatty Acids, VolatileOligonucleotides

Identifiers

PMID27100182
PMCPMC4839692
OpenAlexW2340453863

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.