ArticleNutrients2022
Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural products as modulators of age-associated gut microbiota dysbiosis: a systematic review of animal models.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Association between the subcellular localization of host proteins and gut microbiome and metabolome in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a pilot study.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Systemic inflammation mediates the association between the dietary index for gut microbiota and serum Klotho: evidence from NHANES 2007-2016.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Inflammaging: The Next Challenge-Exploring the Role of Gut Microbiota, Environmental Factors, and Sex Differences.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Natural Shikonin Potentially Alters Intestinal Flora to Alleviate Acute Inflammation.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Prebiotic mechanisms of resistant starches from dietary beans and pulses on gut microbiome and metabolic health in a humanized murine model of aging.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the regulatory effects of Arenga pinnata retrograded starch (APRS), Arenga pinnata starch (APS), and whole Arenga pinnata flour (APF) on gut microbiota and improvement of intestinal inflammation in aged mice. APF, APS, and APRS altered gut microbiota composition and exhibited different prebiotic effects. Bifidobacterium showed the greatest increase in feces of aged mice fed APF. The abundance of genus Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136 was highest in the APS group. APRS supplementation led to a greatest increasement in abundance of Lactobacillus, Roseburia, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. APRS induced significantly more short-chain fatty acid (SCFAs) production than APF and APS. APF, APS, and APRS treatments improved intestinal inflammation in aged mice and the order of ameliorative effect was APRS > APS > APF. APRS significantly decreased relative mRNA expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α) and increased anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10). In addition, APF, APS, and APRS significantly downregulated the relative mRNA expression of senescence-associated gene p53 and upregulated the expression of anti-aging gene Sirt1. These results provide potentially useful information about the beneficial effects of Arenga pinnata products on human health.
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.