Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29954454›Full record

Trial reportMicrobiome2018

Probiotic Bifidobacterium strains and galactooligosaccharides improve intestinal barrier function in obese adults but show no synergism when used together as synbiotics.

Janina A Krumbeck, Heather E Rasmussen, Robert W Hutkins, Jennifer Clarke, Krista Shawron, Ali Keshavarzian, Jens Walter

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Microbiome, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 183 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
183citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

183 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

123 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

7 authors.

Janina A KrumbeckDepartment of Food Science and Technology, 258 Food Innovation Center Lincoln, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA.
Heather E RasmussenDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Robert W HutkinsDepartment of Food Science and Technology, 258 Food Innovation Center Lincoln, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA. rhutkins1@unl.edu.
Jennifer ClarkeDepartment of Food Science and Technology, 258 Food Innovation Center Lincoln, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA.
Krista ShawronDivision of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ali KeshavarzianDivision of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. ali_keshavarzian@rush.edu.
Jens WalterDepartment of Food Science and Technology, 258 Food Innovation Center Lincoln, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA. jwalter1@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1754-172X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne way to improve both the ecological performance and functionality of probiotic bacteria is by combining them with a prebiotic in the form of a synbiotic. However, the degree to which such synbiotic formulations improve probiotic strain functionality in humans has not been tested systematically. Our goal was to use a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial in obese humans to compare the ecological and physiological impact of the prebiotic galactooligosaccharides (GOS) and the probiotic strains Bifidobacterium adolescentis IVS-1 (autochthonous and selected via in vivo selection) and Bifidobacterium lactis BB-12 (commercial probiotic allochthonous to the human gut) when used on their own or as synbiotic combinations. After 3 weeks of consumption, strain-specific quantitative real-time PCR and 16S rRNA gene sequencing were performed on fecal samples to assess changes in the microbiota. Intestinal permeability was determined by measuring sugar recovery in urine by GC after consumption of a sugar mixture. Serum-based endotoxin exposure was also assessed.

resultsIVS-1 reached significantly higher cell numbers in fecal samples than BB-12 (P < 0.01) and, remarkably, its administration induced an increase in total bifidobacteria that was comparable to that of GOS. Although GOS showed a clear bifidogenic effect on the resident gut microbiota, both probiotic strains showed only a non-significant trend of higher fecal cell numbers when administered with GOS. Post-aspirin sucralose:lactulose ratios were reduced in groups IVS-1 (P = 0.050), IVS-1 + GOS (P = 0.022), and GOS (P = 0.010), while sucralose excretion was reduced with BB-12 (P = 0.002) and GOS (P = 0.020), indicating improvements in colonic permeability but no synergistic effects. No changes in markers of endotoxemia were observed.

conclusionThis study demonstrated that "autochthony" of the probiotic strain has a larger effect on ecological performance than the provision of a prebiotic substrate, likely due to competitive interactions with members of the resident microbiota. Although the synbiotic combinations tested in this study did not demonstrate functional synergism, our findings clearly showed that the pro- and prebiotic components by themselves improved markers of colonic permeability, providing a rational for their use in pathologies with an underlying leakiness of the gut.

Indexed as

AdultBifidobacteriumDouble-Blind MethodEndotoxemiaFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansIntestinesMaleMiddle AgedObesityOligosaccharidesPrebioticsProbioticsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSucroseOligosaccharidesPrebioticsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSucrosetrichlorosucroseAllochthonousAutochthonousBifidobacteriaBifidobacteriumGalactooligosaccharideGut barrier functionObesityPrebioticProbioticSynbiotic

Identifiers

PMID29954454
PMCPMC6022452

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.