Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36026477›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of clinical nutrition2022

Absorption of iron from edible house crickets: a randomized crossover stable-isotope study in humans.

Martin N Mwangi, Dennis G A B Oonincx, Marijke Hummel, Dessy A Utami, Lidyawati Gunawan, Margot Veenenbos, Christophe Zeder, Colin I Cercamondi, Michael B Zimmermann, Joop J A van Loon and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. LiveFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  7. Fermentation of House Crickets (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  8. The Potential of Black Soldier Fly (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Martin N MwangiDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8358-4448
Dennis G A B OonincxLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6728-4859
Marijke HummelDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9853-6353
Dessy A UtamiDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Lidyawati GunawanDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Margot VeenenbosLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Christophe ZederHuman Nutrition Laboratory, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich (ETH Zürich), Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6675-3708
Colin I CercamondiHuman Nutrition Laboratory, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich (ETH Zürich), Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8943-5216
Michael B ZimmermannHuman Nutrition Laboratory, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich (ETH Zürich), Zürich, Switzerland.
Joop J A van LoonLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4260-0501
Marcel DickeLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8565-8896
Alida Melse-BoonstraDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8406-7592
Wageningen University & Research · NLETH Zurich · CHBlantyre Institute for Community Ophthalmology · MWCentrum voor Landbouw en Milieu · NLNutrifood · IDUniversitas Esa Unggul · ID

Funding

Wellcome Trust 106856/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEdible insects are a novel source of animal protein. Moreover, edible insects contain iron concentrations similar to meat, potentially making them a valuable iron source for human consumers. Yet, it is unknown to what extent iron from insects is absorbed in humans.

objectivesIn this exploratory study, we assessed fractional iron absorption from house crickets (Acheta domesticus) consumed with refined (low-phytate, noninhibiting) or nonrefined (high-phytate, inhibiting) meals.

methodsIntrinsically [57Fe]-labeled and control crickets were reared. Six iron-balanced experimental meals were randomly administered crossover to 20 iron-depleted females (serum ferritin <25 µg/L; 18-30 y old), in 2 time-blocks of 3 consecutive days, 2 wk apart. Three meals consisted of refined maize flour porridge with either [57Fe]-labeled crickets, [58Fe]SO4 (reference meal), or unlabeled crickets plus [54Fe]SO4. The other 3 meals consisted of nonrefined maize flour porridge with the same respective additions. Blood samples were drawn to assess the 14-d isotope enrichment in erythrocytes, and meal-specific fractional iron absorption was calculated. In vitro digestion was used to explore possible explanations for unexpected findings.

resultsMean fractional iron absorption from 57Fe-labeled house crickets with refined maize porridge (3.06%) and from refined maize porridge with unlabeled crickets (4.92%) was lower than from the reference meal (14.2%), with respective mean differences of -11.1% (95% CI: -12.6%, -9.68%) and -9.29% (95% CI: -10.8%, -7.77%). Iron absorption from all meals based on unrefined maize porridge was low (<3%), and did not differ for the 2 meals with crickets compared with the reference meal. In vitro digestion showed that chitin, chitosan, and calcium limited iron bioaccessibility to a large extent.

conclusionsIron absorption from house crickets and fortified maize porridge with crickets is low, which may be explained by the presence of chitin and other inhibitors in the cricket biomass.This trial was registered at https://www.trialregister.nl as NL6821.

Indexed as

ChitosanGryllidaeAnimalsCalciumFemaleFerritinsFood, FortifiedHumansIntestinal AbsorptionIronIsotopesPhytic AcidZea maysCalciumChitosanFerritinsIronIsotopesPhytic AcidAcheta domesticaanemiabioavailabilitychitinedible insectsfractional iron absorptionhumanironNetherlandsstable isotopes

Identifiers

PMID36026477
PMCPMC9535517
OpenAlexW4294619564

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.