ArticlePloS one2017
Sulfites inhibit the growth of four species of beneficial gut bacteria at concentrations regarded as safe for food.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 123 citations in OpenAlex.
- YeiE regulates YeiH to implement sulfite stress resistance inJournal of bacteriology · 2026Article
- Article
- Shared environments can facilitate microbial transmission and alter metabolic outcomes.Gut microbes · 2025Article
- Molecular insights into the dynamic relationship between respiration rate and sulfur isotope effect.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Recent Advancements in Harnessing Lactic Acid Bacterial Metabolites for Fruits and Vegetables Preservation.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025Review
- Probiotics and Postbiotics for Green Control of Foodborne Pathogens: Intelligent Detection and Biopreservation Strategies for Safer Foods.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Food Preservatives and the Rising Tide of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: Mechanisms, Controversies, and Emerging Innovations.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- May Sulfites in Wine Affect Gut Microbiota? An In Vitro Study of Their Digestion and Interplay with Wine Polyphenols.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025Article
- Food Additives: Emerging Detrimental Roles on Gut Health.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2025Review
- Association of urine parabens with liver function in US adolescents based on NHANES 2007-2016.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effects of Selected Food Additives on the Gut Microbiome and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Molecular imaging uncovers growth media influence on biofilms' EPS production.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Article
- Ultra-Processed Food and Gut Microbiota: Do Additives Affect Eubiosis? A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Novel therapeutic regimens againstFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Comparative Transcriptome Analysis Reveals the Molecular Mechanisms of Acetic Acid Reduction by Adding NaHSOPolish journal of microbiology · 2023Article
- Detection of the Microbial Composition of Some Commercial Fermented Liquid Products via Metagenomic Analysis.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Biometals in Alzheimer disease: emerging therapeutic and diagnostic potential of molybdenum and iodine.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Sulfur content in foods and beverages and its role in human and animal metabolism: A scoping review of recent studies.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Determination of the Bacterial Community of Mustard Pickle Products and Their Microbial and Chemical Qualities.Biology · 2023Article
- The Impact of Food Additives on the Abundance and Composition of Gut Microbiota.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sulfites and other preservatives are considered food additives to limit bacterial contamination, and are generally regarded as safe for consumption by governmental regulatory agencies at concentrations up to 5000 parts per million (ppm). Consumption of bactericidal and bacteriostatic drugs have been shown to damage beneficial bacteria in the human gut and this damage has been associated with several diseases. In the present study, bactericidal and bacteriostatic effects of two common food preservatives, sodium bisulfite and sodium sulfite, were tested on four known beneficial bacterial species common as probiotics and members of the human gut microbiota. Lactobacillus species casei, plantarum and rhamnosus, and Streptococcus thermophilus were grown under optimal environmental conditions to achieve early log phase at start of experiments. Bacterial cultures were challenged with sulfite concentrations ranging between 10 and 3780 ppm for six hours. To establish a control, a culture of each species was inoculated into media containing no sulfite preservative. By two hours of exposure, a substantial decrease (or no increase) of cell numbers (based on OD600 readings) were observed for all bacteria types, in concentrations of sulfites between 250-500 ppm, compared to cells in sulfite free media. Further testing using serial dilution and drop plates identified bactericidal effects in concentrations ranging between 1000-3780 ppm on all the Lactobacillus species by 4 hours of exposure and bactericidal effects on S. thermophilus in 2000ppm NaHSO3 after 6 hours of exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.