Cited by 255Microbial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyGut microbiota and healthProbiotics and Fermented Foods

Xylooligosaccharide increases bifidobacteria but not lactobacilli in human gut microbiota

Open access
Finegold, Sydney M., Li, Zhaoping, Summanen, Paula H., Downes, Julia, Thames, Gail, Corbett, Karen, Dowd, Scot, Krak, Michael +1 more·2014·Food & Function

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the tolerance and effects of the prebiotic xylooligosaccharide (XOS) on the composition of human colonic microbiota, pH and short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in order to determine whether significant changes in the microbiota would be achievable without side effects. Healthy adult subjects (n = 32) were recruited in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Subjects received 1.4 g XOS, 2.8 g XOS or placebo in daily doses. The study consisted of a 2 week run-in, an 8 week intervention, and a 2 week washout phase. Stool samples were collected at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks of intervention and 2 weeks after cessation of intervention. Samples were subjected to culture, pyrosequencing of community DNA, pH and SCFA analyses. Tolerance was evaluated by daily symptom charts. XOS was tolerated without significant gastrointestinal side effects. Bifidobacterium counts increased in both XOS groups compared to the placebo subjects, the 2.8 g per day group showed significantly greater increases than the 1.4 g per day group. Total anaerobic counts and Bacteroides fragilis group counts were significantly higher in the 2.8 g per day XOS group. There were no significant differences in the counts of Lactobacillus, Enterobacteriaceae and Clostridium between the three groups. XOS intervention had no significant effect on stool pH, SCFA or lactic acid. Pyrosequencing showed no notable shifts in bacterial diversity. XOS supplementation may be beneficial to gastrointestinal microbiota and 2.8 g per day may be more effective than 1.4 g per day. The low dose required and lack of gastrointestinal side effects makes the use of XOS as a food supplement feasible.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c3fo60348b

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finegold, S. M., Li, Z., Summanen, P. H., Downes, J., Thames, G., Corbett, K., Dowd, S., Krak, M., & Heber, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • VA West Los Angeles Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Finegold, Sydney M.
Venue
Food & Function
Published
2014
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
436
ISSN
  • 2042-6496 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-650X
OpenAlex
W2100640974
Cited by
255
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
11.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Food & Function (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
Keywords
xylooligosaccharides, prebiotics, gut microbiota, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, colonic microbiota, short-chain fatty acids, fecal pH, Bacteroides fragilis group, dietary supplementation, dose-response relationship
MeSH terms
Adult, Bifidobacterium, Colon, Fatty Acids, Volatile, Feces, Female, Glucuronates, Humans, Lactobacillus, Male, Middle Aged, Oligosaccharides, Young Adult, Prebiotics, Microbiota

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