Cited by 62Gut microbiota and healthFood composition and propertiesMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology

Resistant starch alters the microbiota-gut brain axis: implications for dietary modulation of behavior

Open access
Lyte, Mark, Chapel, Ashley, Lyte, Joshua M., Ai, Yongfeng, Proctor, Alexandra, Jane, Jay-Lin, Phillips, Gregory J.·2016·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The increasing recognition that the gut microbiota plays a central role in behavior and cognition suggests that the manipulation of microbial taxa through diet may provide a means by which behavior may be altered in a reproducible and consistent manner in order to achieve a beneficial outcome for the host. Resistant starch continues to receive attention as a dietary intervention that can benefit the host through mechanisms that include altering the intestinal microbiota. Given the interest in dietary approaches to improve health, the aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of dietary resistant starch in mice to alter the gut microbiota also results in a change in behavior. Forty-eight 6 week-old male Swiss-Webster mice were randomly assigned to 3 treatment groups (n = 16 per group) and fed either a normal corn starch diet (NCS) or diets rich in resistant starches HA7 diet (HA7) or octenyl-succinate HA7 diet (OS-HA7) for 6 week and monitored for weight, behavior and fecal microbiota composition. Animals fed an HA7 diet displayed comparable weight gain over the feeding period to that recorded for NCS-fed animals while OS-HA7 displayed a lower weight gain as compared to either NCS or HA7 animals (ANOVA p = 0.0001; NCS:HA7 p = 0.244; HA7:OS-HA7 p<0.0001; NCS:OS-HA7 p<0.0001). Analysis of fecal microbiota using 16s rRNA gene taxonomic profiling revealed that each diet corresponded with a unique gut microbiota. The distribution of taxonomic classes was dynamic over the 6 week feeding period for each of the diets. At the end of the feeding periods, the distribution of taxa included statistically significant increases in members of the phylum Proteobacteria in OS-HA7 fed mice, while the Verrucomicrobia increased in HA7 fed mice over that of mice fed OS-HA7. At the class level, members of the class Bacilli decreased in the OS-HA7 fed group, and Actinobacteria, which includes the genus Bifidobacteria, was enriched in the HA7 fed group compared to the control diet. Behavioral analysis revealed that animals demonstrated profound anxiety-like behavior as observed by performance on the elevated-plus maze with time spent by the mice in the open arm (ANOVA p = 0.000; NCS:HA7 p = 0.004; NCS:OS-HA7 p = 1.000; HA7:OS-HA7 p = 0.0001) as well as entries in the open arm (ANOVA p = 0.039; NCS:HA7 p = 0.041; HA7:OS-HA7 p = 0.221; NCS:OS-HA7 p = 1.000). Open-field behavior, a measure of general locomotion and exploration, revealed statistically significant differences between groups in locomotion as a measure of transitions across quadrant boundaries. Additionally, the open-field assay revealed decreased exploration as well as decreased rearing in HA7 and OS-HA7 fed mice demonstrating a consistent pattern of increased anxiety-like behavior among these groups. Critically, behavior was not correlated with weight. These results indicate that diets based on resistant starch can be utilized to produce quantifiable changes in the gut microbiota and should be useful to "dial-in" a specific microbiome that is unique to a particular starch composition. However, undesirable effects can also be associated with resistant starch, including lack of weight gain and increased anxiety-like behaviors. These observations warrant careful consideration when developing diets rich in resistant starch in humans and animal models.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0146406

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lyte, M., Chapel, A., Lyte, J. M., Ai, Y., Proctor, A., Jane, J.-L., & Phillips, G. J.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (US)
Corresponding author
Lyte, Mark
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2016-01-08
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
e0146406
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2228718790
Cited by
62
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison (UL1 TR000427)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000427, P51OD011106)
  • Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison (UL1TR000427)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (P510D11106)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R33MH104198)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM099537)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P51RR000167)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Keywords
resistant starch, gut microbiota, microbiota-gut-brain axis, anxiety-like behavior, fecal microbiota composition, Bifidobacterium, Proteobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, elevated plus maze, weight gain, dietary intervention, mice, 16S rRNA gene profiling
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Animals, Anxiety, Bacillaceae, Behavior, Animal, Brain, Diet, Dietary Carbohydrates, Exploratory Behavior, Feces, Humans, Male, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Starch, Weight Gain, Maze Learning, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Gastrointestinal Tract, Mice, Metagenome, Verrucomicrobia

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