Estimation and Interpretation of Fermentation in the Gut: Coupling Results from a 24 h Batch in Vitro System with Fecal Measurements from a Human Intervention Feeding Study Using Fructo-oligosaccharides, Inulin, Gum Acacia, and Pea Fiber
Abstract
Gut bacteria ferment fiber at different rates to primarily short chain fatty acids (SCFA) and gas while proteins are metabolized to SCFA, branched chain fatty acids (BCFA), gas, and undesirable metabolites. Large volumes of gas produced in vivo may contribute to bloating and flatulence in an individual. The objectives of this trial were to (1) compare the in vitro fermentation profiles of fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS), inulin, gum acacia, and pea fiber alone or blended using a 24 h batch model and (2) relate these findings to a human study that fed enteral formula fortified with fiber blend (FB) or no fiber (FF). The in vitro fermentation of the fiber blend resulted in a delayed pH decrease and gas and SCFA production compared to the FOS and inulin. Human samples had higher SCFA on FB compared to FF (p = 0.029). BCFA were not different between formulas. By using a blend of fibers, we observed a slower fermentation in vitro but still increased fecal SCFA when fed to human subjects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Both prior studies indicate potentially beneficial effects of combining inulin and other prebiotic fibers, ranging from increased SCFAs to attenuation of pro-inflammatory responses.
“Both of these studies indicate potentially beneficial effects of combining inulin and other prebiotic fibers ranging from increased SCFAs (Koecher et al., 2014) to attenuation of pro-inflammatory responses (Lecerf et al., 2012).”
From Botanicals impact the bifidogenic effect and metabolic outputs of <i>in vitro</i> fiber fermentation by gut-derived microbiota in individual-specific ways (2025) · cites this paper as Koecher et al., 2014
Few in vitro or in vivo studies have examined the interactive beneficial microbiome or human health effects of combining inulin with other prebiotic or fiber substrates.
“Few in vitro or in vivo studies have examined the interactive beneficial microbiome or human health effects of combining inulin with other prebiotic or fiber substates, though these interactions are likely to be very influential on their behavior in the gut.”
From Botanicals impact the bifidogenic effect and metabolic outputs of <i>in vitro</i> fiber fermentation by gut-derived microbiota in individual-specific ways (2025) · cites this paper as Koecher et al., 2014
Research efforts to assess the interactive microbiome or health effect of multiple microbiome-active fibers is still in its infancy.
“However, research efforts to assess the interactive microbiome or health effect of multiple microbiome-active fibers is still in its infancy.”
From Botanicals impact the bifidogenic effect and metabolic outputs of <i>in vitro</i> fiber fermentation by gut-derived microbiota in individual-specific ways (2025) · cites this paper as Koecher et al., 2014
Cites
Role of colonic short-chain fatty acid transport in diarrhea
Binder, H. J. (2010) · Annual Review of Physiology · doi:10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135817 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deehan, E. C., Zhang, Z., Nguyen, N. K., Perez-Muñoz, M. E., Cole, J., Riva, A., Berry, D., Prado, C. M., & Walter, J. (2024) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2024.2363021 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Poelaert, C., Nollevaux, G., Boudry, C., Taminiau, B., Nezer, C., Daube, G., Schneider, Y.-J., Portetelle, D., Théwis, A., & Bindelle, J. (2018) · animal · doi:10.1017/s1751731117002749 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Deemer, D. G., Voreades, N., Bron, P. A., & Lindemann, S. R. (2025) · Journal of Food Bioactives · doi:10.26599/jfb.2025.95030415 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Koecher, K. J., Noack, J. A., Timm, D. A., Klosterbuer, A. S., Thomas, W., & Slavin, J. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Slavin, Joanne L.
- Venue
- Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-01-31
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1332-1337
- ISSN
- 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5118
- OpenAlex
- W2324202453
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 4.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Minnesota
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
- Keywords
- gut fermentation, short-chain fatty acids, branched-chain fatty acids, fructooligosaccharides, inulin, gum arabic, pea fiber, fiber blends, enteral formulas, fecal SCFA, gas production, bloating, flatulence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Bacteria, Dietary Fiber, Enteral Nutrition, Fatty Acids, Volatile, Feces, Female, Fermentation, Fructose, Gum Arabic, Humans, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Intestines, Inulin, Male, Oligosaccharides, Pisum sativum, In Vitro Techniques
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
