ArticleGut2025
Article in Gut, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Miniature bioreactor arrays for modeling functional and structural dysbiosis in inflammatory bowel disease.Gut microbes · 2026Article
- Article
- Dietary emulsifiers and host inflammation synergistically drive genomic evolution of Crohn's disease-associated Escherichia coli toward enhanced pathogenicity.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2026Article
- Gut microbiome and obesity care: Bridging dietary, surgical, and pharmacological interventions.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Review
- Precision microbiome medicine and therapeutics: the enabling role of in vitro gut models.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2026Review
- Article
- Gut Microbiota and Autism: Unlocking Connections.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Microbiome in heritage: how maternal microbiome transmission impacts next generation health.Microbiome · 2025Review
- Correlation between gut microbiota and metabolomics under intermittent hypoxic conditions.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-absorbed dietary emulsifiers, including carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), directly disturb intestinal microbiota, thereby promoting chronic intestinal inflammation in mice. A randomised controlled-feeding study (Functional Research on Emulsifiers in Humans, FRESH) found that CMC also detrimentally impacts intestinal microbiota in some, but not all, healthy individuals.
objectivesThis study aimed to establish an approach for predicting an individual's sensitivity to dietary emulsifiers via their baseline microbiota.
designWe evaluated the ability of an
resultsExposure of human microbiotas, maintained in the MBRA, to CMC recapitulated the differential CMC sensitivity previously observed in FRESH subjects. Furthermore, select FRESH control subjects (ie, not fed CMC) had microbiotas that were highly perturbed by CMC exposure in the MBRA model. CMC-induced microbiota perturbability was associated with a baseline metagenomic signature, suggesting the possibility of using one's metagenome to predict sensitivity to dietary emulsifiers. Transplant of human microbiotas that the MBRA model deemed CMC-sensitive, but not those deemed insensitive, into IL-10
conclusionThese results suggest that an individual's sensitivity to emulsifier is a consequence of, and can thus be predicted by, examining their baseline microbiota, paving the way to microbiota-based personalised nutrition.
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.