ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Synthetic vs. non-synthetic sweeteners: their differential effects on gut microbiome diversity and function.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gut microbiome and metabolic health: mechanisms and precision interventions.Gut microbes · 2026Review
- Ultra-Processed Diets and Pediatric Acne: Insulin-mTOR Activation and Its Potential Role in Cutaneous Inflammation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- The multi-omic basis for hepatic encephalopathy recurrence: Analysis of the THEMATIC trial.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Article
- Gut Microbiota Composition in Rats Consuming Sucralose or Rebaudioside A at Recommended Doses Under Two Dietary Interventions.Metabolites · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rising use of artificial sweeteners, favored for their zero-calorie content and superior sweetness, necessitates understanding their impact on the gut microbiome. This study examines the effects of five common artificial sweeteners-Acesulfame K, Rebaudioside A, Saccharin, Sucralose, and Xylitol-on gut microbiome diversity using minibioreactor arrays. Fecal samples from three healthy individuals were used to inoculate bioreactors that were subsequently supplemented with each sweetener. Over 35 days, microbial diversity and network composition were analyzed. Results revealed synthetic sweeteners like Sucralose and Saccharin significantly reduced microbial diversity, while non-synthetic sweeteners, particularly Rebaudioside A and Xylitol, were less disruptive. Acesulfame K increased diversity but disrupted network structure, suggesting potential long-term negative impacts on microbiome resilience. Sucralose enriched pathogenic families such as Enterobacteriaceae, whereas natural sweeteners promoted beneficial taxa like Lachnospiraceae. Random Matrix Theory (RMT) based analysis highlighted distinct microbial interaction patterns, with Acesulfame K causing persistent structural changes. Findings suggest non-synthetic sweeteners may be more favorable for gut health than synthetic ones, emphasizing cautious use, particularly for those with gut health concerns. This study enhances our understanding of artificial sweeteners' effects on the gut microbiome, highlighting the need for further research into their long-term health implications.
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.