Cited by 76

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consumption of Acidic Water Alters the Gut Microbiome and Decreases the Risk of Diabetes in NOD Mice

Wolf, Kyle J., Daft, Joseph G., Tanner, Scott M., Hartmann, Riley, Khafipour, Ehsan, Lorenz, Robin G.·2014·Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry

Abstract

Infant formula and breastfeeding are environmental factors that influence the incidence of Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) as well as the acidity of newborn diets. To determine if altering the intestinal microbiome is one mechanism through which an acidic liquid plays a role in T1D, we placed non-obese diabetic (NOD)/ShiLtJt mice on neutral (N) or acidified H 2 O and monitored the impact on microbial composition and diabetes incidence. NOD-N mice showed an increased development of diabetes, while exhibiting a decrease in Firmicutes and an increase in Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Proteobacteria from as early as 2 weeks of age. NOD-N mice had a decrease in the levels of Foxp3 expression in CD4 + Foxp3 + cells, as well as decreased CD4 + IL17 + cells, and a lower ratio of IL17/IFNγ CD4+ T-cells. Our data clearly indicates that a change in the acidity of liquids consumed dramatically alters the intestinal microbiome, the presence of protective Th17 and Treg cells, and the incidence of diabetes. This data suggests that early dietary manipulation of intestinal microbiota may be a novel mechanism to delay T1D onset in genetically pre-disposed individuals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1369/0022155413519650

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. 10.1007/s00125-012-2672-4 · DOI
  2. 10.1128/IAI.01432-07 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.coi.2011.10.002 · DOI
  4. 10.4049/jimmunol.0900576 · DOI
  5. 10.1017/S0007114508094658 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.3390/nu4081095 · DOI
  7. 10.4049/jimmunol.1200955 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2005.02942.x · DOI
  10. 10.1084/jem.139.5.1189 · DOI
  11. 10.4049/jimmunol.182.1.148 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00845.x · DOI
  13. Dimmitt RA, 2010, J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr, 51, 262, 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181e1a114 · DOI
  14. 10.2337/diabetes.53.2.366 · DOI
  15. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.2337/db08-1113 · DOI
  17. 10.2337/db11-0090 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/ismej.2010.92 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.3389/fcimb.2012.00094 · DOI
  20. Hall JE, 1980, Lab Anim Sci, 30, 643
  21. 10.1016/j.clim.2012.12.001 · DOI
  22. Hermann LM, 1982, Lab Anim Sci, 32, 603
  23. 10.1016/j.cell.2009.09.033 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1073/pnas.1108924108 · DOI
  25. 10.4049/jimmunol.1001864 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/ni.2416 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Leiter E, 1997, Current Protocols in Immunology
  28. 10.4049/jimmunol.1001860 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2011.01084.x · DOI
  30. 10.2337/diab.37.12.1625 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1046/j.1462-5822.2001.00090.x · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1016/j.ecl.2010.05.008 · DOI
  33. 10.4049/jimmunol.0902822 · DOI
  34. 10.1097/00005176-199210000-00004 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.it.2012.02.008 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00513.x · DOI
  37. 10.1038/ismej.2009.5 · DOI
  38. 10.1128/AEM.01541-09 · DOI
  39. 10.1369/0022155411416242 · DOI
  40. 10.1097/00005176-200403000-00012 · DOI
  41. 10.1002/dmrr.945 · DOI
  42. 10.1038/mi.2012.73 · DOI
  43. 10.3945/jn.112.166231 · DOI
  44. 10.1073/pnas.0509006102 · DOI
  45. 10.1084/jem.20120504 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.2337/db08-0331 · DOI
  47. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010507 · DOI
  48. 10.4049/jimmunol.1000462 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 76

Metadata

Authors
Wolf, K. J., Daft, J. G., Tanner, S. M., Hartmann, R., Khafipour, E., & Lorenz, R. G.
Venue
Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry
Published
2014-01-22
Volume
62
Issue
4
Pages
237-250
ISSN
  • 0022-1554
  • 1551-5044
Cited by
76
References
3
Language
en

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