Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31027304›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2019

Xenobiotics Formed during Food Processing: Their Relation with the Intestinal Microbiota and Colorectal Cancer.

Alicja M Nogacka, María Gómez-Martín, Adolfo Suárez, Oscar González-Bernardo, Clara G de Los Reyes-Gavilán, Sonia González

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Genetic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer and the microbiome.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023
    Review
  14. Microbiota of the gastrointestinal tract: Friend or foe?World journal of gastroenterology · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alicja M NogackaDepartment of Microbiology and Biochemistry of Dairy Products, Instituto de Productos Lácteos de Asturias, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IPLA-CSIC), Paseo Río Linares s/n, Villaviciosa, 33300 Asturias, Spain. alicja.nogacka@ipla.csic.es.ORCID 0000-0001-8300-6149
María Gómez-MartínDiet, Microbiota and Health Group, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Oviedo, 33011 Asturias, Spain. mariagomart@gmail.com.
Adolfo SuárezDiet, Microbiota and Health Group, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Oviedo, 33011 Asturias, Spain. adolfo.suarez@hcabuenes.es.
Oscar González-BernardoDigestive Service, Central University Hospital of Asturias (HUCA), SESPA, Oviedo, 33011 Asturias, Spain. oscargbernardo@hotmail.com.
Clara G de Los Reyes-GavilánDiet, Microbiota and Health Group, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Oviedo, 33011 Asturias, Spain. greyes_gavilan@ipla.csic.es.ORCID 0000-0001-9396-6311
Sonia GonzálezDepartment of Microbiology and Biochemistry of Dairy Products, Instituto de Productos Lácteos de Asturias, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IPLA-CSIC), Paseo Río Linares s/n, Villaviciosa, 33300 Asturias, Spain. soniagsolares@uniovi.es.ORCID 0000-0003-2602-7036
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas · ESHospital Universitario Central de Asturias · ESUniversidad de Oviedo · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The colonic epithelium is exposed to a mixture of compounds through diet, among which some are procarcinogens, whereas others have a protective effect. Therefore, the net impact of these compounds on human health depends on the overall balance between all factors involved. Strong scientific evidence has demonstrated the relationship between nitrosamines (NA), heterocyclic amines (HCAs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are the major genotoxins derived from cooking and food processing, and cancer. The mechanisms of the relationship between dietary toxic xenobiotics and cancer risk are not yet well understood, but it has been suggested that differences in dietary habits affect the colonic environment by increasing or decreasing the exposure to mutagens directly and indirectly through changes in the composition and activity of the gut microbiota. Several changes in the proportions of specific microbial groups have been proposed as risk factors for the development of neoplastic lesions and the enrichment of enterotoxigenic microbial strains in stool. In addition, changes in the gut microbiota composition and activity promoted by diet may modify the faecal genotoxicity/cytotoxicity, which can be associated with a higher or lower risk of developing cancer. Therefore, the interaction between dietary components and intestinal bacteria may be a modifiable factor for the development of colorectal cancer in humans and deserves more attention in the near future.

Indexed as

Food HandlingGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsColorectal NeoplasmsHumansXenobioticsXenobioticsaromatic polycyclic hydrocarbonscolorectal cancercookingcytotoxicitydietfood processinggenotoxicityheterocyclic aminesintestinal microbiotaxenobiotics

Identifiers

PMID31027304
PMCPMC6514608
OpenAlexW2941377830

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.