Cited by 180Microbial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyProbiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and health

A double-blind placebo-controlled study to establish the bifidogenic dose of inulin in healthy humans

Kolida, S, Meyer, D, Gibson, G R·2007·European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the bifidogenic efficacy of two inulin doses in healthy human adults. Design A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover human study. Setting Food Microbial Sciences Unit, The University of Reading, Reading, UK. Subjects Thirty healthy volunteers, 15 men, 15 women (age range 19-35). Interventions Subjects consumed a chocolate drink containing placebo (maltodextrin, 8 g/day), 5 g/day inulin and 8 g/day inulin for a 2-week treatment period. Each treatment was followed by a 1-week washout at the end of which volunteers progressed to the next treatment. Faecal samples were obtained at the start of the study (baseline) and at the end of each treatment and washout period. Fluorescent in situ hybridization was used to monitor populations of Bifidobacterium genus, Bacteroides - Prevotella, Lactobacillus - Enterococcus and Clostridium perfringens - histolyticum subgroup. Results Bifidobacterial levels increased significantly upon ingestion of both the low (9.78+/-0.29 log(10) cells/g faeces, P Conclusions Both inulin doses exhibited a bifidogenic effect but a higher volunteer percentage responded to the high dose. A dose response effect was not observed but the magnitude of increase in bifidobacteria levels depended on their initial numbers. The higher the initial concentrations the smaller was the increase upon ingestion of the active treatments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602636

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Inulin can stimulate the growth of Bifidobacterium spp. and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, while increasing butyrate production.

    “Numerous studies have shown that inulin can stimulate the growth of Bifidobacterium spp.and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, while increasing butyrate production (de Preter et al., 2008;Kolida et al., 2007;Ramirez-Farias et al., 2009).”

    From The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis (2019) · cites this paper as Kolida et al., 2007

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 29 · Cited by 180

Authors
Kolida, S., Meyer, D., & Gibson, G. R.
Affiliations
University of Reading (GB)
Corresponding author
Kolida, S
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Published
2007-01-31
Volume
61
Issue
10
Pages
1189-1195
ISSN
  • 0954-3007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5640
OpenAlex
W2116710945
Cited by
180
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
inulin, bifidogenic effect, Bifidobacterium, fecal microbiota, dose-response relationship, prebiotics, healthy adults, chocolate drink, Bacteroides-Prevotella
MeSH terms
Adult, Bifidobacterium, Colon, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Feces, Female, Fermentation, Humans, Inulin, Male, Colony Count, Microbial, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Cross-Over Studies, Probiotics

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