ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2020
Dietary Emulsifiers Alter Composition and Activity of the Human Gut Microbiota
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diet, Ultra-Processed Foods, and Food Additives in Crohn's Disease: A Comprehensive Review.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Preventing MALT1-mediated CYLD cleavage induces intestinal dysbiosis and reduces EAE severity.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Dietary exposure to food additives in ultra-processed foods: implications for gut microbiome, metabolic health, and risk assessment.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Sophorolipids: multifunctional microbial glycolipids with diverse bioactivities and applications.Biotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts · 2025Review
- Beneath the Surface: The Emerging Role of Ultra-Processed Foods in Obesity-Related Cancer.Current oncology reports · 2025Review
- The Detrimental Impact of Ultra-Processed Foods on the Human Gut Microbiome and Gut Barrier.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Common dietary emulsifiers promote metabolic disorders and intestinal microbiota dysbiosis in mice.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Ultra-processed foods and food additives in gut health and disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Review
- Ultraprocessed Foods and Obesity Risk: A Critical Review of Reported Mechanisms.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Review
- Article
- Role of mucus-bacteria interactions in Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) H10407 virulence and interplay with human microbiome.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2022Article
- Food Emulsifiers and Metabolic Syndrome: The Role of the Gut Microbiota.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Anti-obesity effects of Chenpi: an artificial gastrointestinal system study.Microbial biotechnology · 2022Article
- Food Additives, a Key Environmental Factor in the Development of IBD through Gut Dysbiosis.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Ultra-processed foods as a possible culprit for the rising prevalence of inflammatory bowel diseases.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Genomic reconstruction of short-chain fatty acid production by the human gut microbiota.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of additives in food products has become an important public health concern. In recent reports, dietary emulsifiers have been shown to affect the gut microbiota, contributing to a pro-inflammatory phenotype and metabolic syndrome. So far, it is not yet known whether similar microbiome shifts are observable for a more diverse set of emulsifier types and to what extent these effects vary with the unique features of an individual's microbiome. To bridge this gap, we investigated the effect of five dietary emulsifiers on the fecal microbiota from 10 human individuals upon a 48 h exposure. Community structure was assessed with quantitative microbial profiling, functionality was evaluated by measuring fermentation metabolites, and pro-inflammatory properties were assessed with the phylogenetic prediction algorithm PICRUSt, together with a TLR5 reporter cell assay for flagellin. A comparison was made between two mainstream chemical emulsifiers (carboxymethylcellulose and P80), a natural extract (soy lecithin), and biotechnological emulsifiers (sophorolipids and rhamnolipids). While fecal microbiota responded in a donor-dependent manner to the different emulsifiers, profound differences between emulsifiers were observed. Rhamnolipids, sophorolipids, and soy lecithin eliminated 91 ± 0, 89 ± 1, and 87 ± 1% of the viable bacterial population after 48 h, yet they all selectively increased the proportional abundance of putative pathogens. Moreover, profound shifts in butyrate (-96 ± 6, -73 ± 24, and -34 ± 25%) and propionate (+13 ± 24, +88 ± 50, and +29 ± 16%) production were observed for these emulsifiers. Phylogenetic prediction indicated higher motility, which was, however, not confirmed by increased flagellin levels using the TLR5 reporter cell assay. We conclude that dietary emulsifiers can severely impact the gut microbiota, and this seems to be proportional to their emulsifying strength, rather than emulsifier type or origin. As biotechnological emulsifiers were especially more impactful than chemical emulsifiers, caution is warranted when considering them as more natural alternatives for clean label strategies.
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.