Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33250870›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2020

Dietary Emulsifiers Alter Composition and Activity of the Human Gut Microbiota

Lisa Miclotte, Kim De Paepe, Leen Rymenans, Chris Callewaert, Jeroen Raes, Andreja Rajkovic, John Van Camp, Tom Van de Wiele

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Ultra-processed foods and food additives in gut health and disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Gut · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa MiclotteCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Kim De PaepeCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Leen RymenansVlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB) Nucleomics Core, Lab of Molecular Bacteriology - Rega, KULeuven, Ghent, Belgium.
Chris CallewaertCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jeroen RaesVlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB) Nucleomics Core, Lab of Molecular Bacteriology - Rega, KULeuven, Ghent, Belgium.
Andreja RajkovicDepartment of Food Technology, Food Safety and Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
John Van CampDepartment of Food Technology, Food Safety and Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Tom Van de WieleCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BEVlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

dietary emulsifiersemulsifier originhuman gut microbiotainterindividual variablilitymicrobiome compositionmicrobiome functionality

Identifiers

PMID33250870
PMCPMC7676226
OpenAlexW3096775370

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.