CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Microbial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyGut microbiota and healthProbiotics and Fermented Foods

Botanicals impact the bifidogenic effect and metabolic outputs of in vitro fiber fermentation by gut-derived microbiota in individual-specific ways

Open access
Deemer, Dane G, Voreades, Noah, Bron, Peter A, Lindemann, Stephen R·2025·Journal of Food Bioactives
DOI 10.26599/jfb.2025.95030415

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Fortification of products frequently consumed by a large proportion of society provides an attractive strategy to close the “fiber gap” and may have the potential to concomitantly reverse the detrimental health effects exacerbated by our modern diets. Besides prebiotic fibers, products can contain other functional components, e.g. botanicals. However, most studies have investigated functional components in isolation. The impact of other components present in functional product blends on the bifidogenic effect typically exerted by prebiotic fibers are largely unexplored. Here, we investigated the fiber and botanical blends included in OLIPOP, a functional soda, in an in vitro gut fermentation model. Our data revealed that the blend of inulins and resistant dextrins promoted growth of bifidobacteria across gut microbiota from four donors, even those with small initial populations. In addition, botanicals interacted with fiber fermentation in donor-specific ways, in some cases strongly enhancing fermentation rate and production of short-chain fatty acids. Graphical Abstract

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In vitro batch fermentation of an OLIPOP fiber blend with or without added botanicals showed a strong bifidogenic effect and high short-chain fatty acid production across four fecal donors, but the botanical effects on fermentation rate and metabolic outputs were donor-specific. The authors conclude that blends of microbiome-active ingredients should be tested with interaction arms in future clinical studies.

Key findings

  • All fiber-containing fermentations acidified rapidly, reaching pH 3.5–4.0 within 12 h for donors 1 and 2, while donors 3 and 4 continued a modest pH decline. Botanicals increased fermentation rate for donors 1 and 3, had little or no impact for donor 2, and significantly slowed acid generation for donor 4.
  • Acetate approached or exceeded 60 mM by the end of fermentation across donors. Botanicals significantly stimulated acetate at 12 h for donors 1 and 3 (p < 0.05); donor 4 acetate was delayed for the first 18 h but significantly stimulated at 24 h (p < 0.05).
  • Propionate and butyrate were donor- and botanical-dependent: donor 1 produced ~14 mM butyrate with vs ~7 mM without botanicals and ~7 mM propionate with vs ~4.5 mM without (p < 0.05); donor 3 produced ~6 mM vs ~4 mM butyrate and up to ~15 mM vs a maximum of ~8 mM propionate with botanicals; donor 4 butyrate dropped significantly with botanicals (p < 0.05 for all timepoints except t = 2 h).
  • Bifidobacteriaceae bloomed across all donors with and without botanicals (p < 0.001, ANOVA), with B. adolescentis most abundant after fermentation. Species-level responses varied: B. longum increased in donors 1 and 3; donor 2’s B. longum was outcompeted by B. adolescentis without botanicals but retained with botanicals; donor 4’s B. adolescentis increased further with botanicals (p < 0.01). Alpha diversity decreased over the 24-h fermentation (p < 0.001).

Methods

  • Anaerobic batch cultures were inoculated with fecal slurry from 4 donors (2 male, 2 female, aged 20–39; three omnivore, one vegetarian) under Purdue IRB-2020-1650. Substrates were OLISMART fibers (cassava root fiber, chicory root inulin, Jerusalem artichoke inulin) alone or with botanicals (nopal cactus, marshmallow root, calendula flower, kudzu root), at 0.025 g/ml (2.5% w/v), equivalent to 9 g dietary fiber per 355 ml can; no-carbon-source controls were included.
  • Fermentations were performed in an anoxic chamber at 37°C and sampled in triplicate at 2, 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 h. pH, SCFAs by GC-FID, and DNA for shallow metagenomic sequencing were measured; taxonomy used MetaPhlAn/PhyloPhlAn, diversity used phyloseq, and metabolic potential used HUManN.
  • Statistics included ANOVA with donor, timepoint, and media as factors; two-group t-tests at specific timepoints; Tukey HSD for pairwise adjustments; and family-level read-count ANOVA with media condition and donor as interacting variables.

Limitations

  • Stated: the study was a proof-of-concept with a modest set of donors (4), used in vitro batch culture rather than human clinical outcomes, and did not measure lactate, which the authors hypothesize may explain donor 4’s SCFA differences. The authors also note that future studies should include study arms for individual components and full functional blends to measure interaction effects.
  • Evident: the study received funding and in-kind contribution from OLIPOP, Inc.; the funder had involvement in design, writing, and editing, and authors report employment, consulting, or advisory-board roles with OLIPOP, Inc.
  • Evident: fermentations lasted only 24 h, used a single fecal sample per donor, and microbial community data are relative abundances, so reductions in relative abundance do not necessarily imply absolute reductions.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.26599/jfb.2025.95030415

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 13 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Koecher et al., 2014 source
    • cites Lecerf et al., 2012 source
  • Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Koecher et al., 2014 source
    • cites Lecerf et al., 2012 source

      The Discussion reports beneficial microbiome and immune effects from combining inulin with XOS and calls this, to the authors’ knowledge, the first clinical study showing anti-inflammatory potential from a mixture of prebiotic fibres. That supports the existence of a relevant study and a narrower claim of clinical novelty, but it does not establish that few in vitro or in vivo studies have examined inulin combined with other prebiotic or fibre substrates generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    The acetogenesis rate in botanical-amended cultures increased with time until the end of the experiment.

    “Further, the acetogenesis rate in botanicalamended cultures increased with time, until the end of the experiment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Fermentation of OLISMART fibers across all donors was strongly acetogenic, approaching or exceeding 60 mM by the end of the fermentation.

    “Fermentation of OLISMART fibers across all donors was strongly acetogenic, approaching or exceeding 60 mM by the end of the fermentation (Figure 2a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Unlike acetate production, production of propionate and butyrate from fermentation of OLISMART fibers was strongly donor- and botanical-dependent.

    “Unlike acetate production, production of propionate and butyrate from fermentation of OLISMART fibers was strongly donor-and botanical-dependent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • May combine two claims. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Koecher et al., 2014 source
    • cites Lecerf et al., 2012 source

      The Abstract describes a study of XOS combined with inulin, and the Discussion compares its effects with prior studies. Neither section says that research on the interactive effects of multiple microbiome-active fibers is still in its infancy. Searches for limited research on fiber combinations found no passage making that broader assessment. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Acetogenesis by donor 4's microbiota was strongly delayed by botanicals for the first 18 h, thereafter showing significant botanical stimulation of acetate at 24 h (p < 0.05); these communities produced no meaningful amounts of acetate until 12 h postinoculation.

    “In contrast, acetogenesis by donor 4's microbiota was strongly delayed by botanicals for the first 18 h, thereafter showing significant botanical stimulation of acetate at 24 h (p < 0.05); these communities produced no meaningful amounts of acetate until 12 h postinoculation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The reduction in alpha diversity was seen across all donors and no significant donor effects were observed (p > 0.1).

    “this reduction in alpha diversity was seen across all donors and no significant donor effects were observed (p > 0.1, ANOVA + Tukey HSD test).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Donors that were strongly responsive to botanicals were the only ones in which BCFAs (isobutyrate, isovalerate) could be detected, with maximum isobutyrate and isovalerate levels of 0.10 μM and 0.30 μM for Donor 1 and values of 0.11 μM and 0.18 μM for Donor 2, respectively.

    “Interestingly, donors that were strongly responsive to botanicals were the only ones in which BCFAs (isobutyrate, isovalerate) could be detected (data not shown), with maximum isobutyrate and isovalerate levels of 0.10 μM and 0.30 μM for Donor 1 and values of 0.11 μM and 0.18 μM for Donor 2, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    B. adolescentis populations expanded strongly and significantly, and this species was the most abundant bifidobacterial species after fermentation of OLISMART fibers, both with and without botanicals, in fermentations using all donors' microbiota.

    “Mapping of bifidobacterial reads to the species level revealed strong, significant expansion of B. adolescentis populations, and this species was the most abundant bifidobacterial species after fermentation of OLISMART fibers, both with and without bo-”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Donor 3's microbiota were substantially more propiogenic than butyrogenic when OLIPOP fibers were fermented alone, and produced both significantly more butyrate (∼6 mM vs. ∼4 mM) and propionate (upwards in some cases of 15 mM vs. a maximum of ∼8 mM) when botanicals were present.

    “Donor 3's microbiota were substantially more propiogenic than butyrogenic when OLIPOP fibers were fermented alone, and produced both significantly more butyrate (∼6 mM vs. ∼4 mM) and propionate (upwards in some cases of 15 mM vs. a maximum of ∼8 mM) when botanicals were present (Figure 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Donor 1's microbiota produced far more butyrate than propionate, and both levels appeared enhanced by the presence of botanicals (butyrate: ∼14 mM with and ∼7 mM without, p < 0.05; propionate: ∼7 mM with and ∼4.5 mM without, p < 0.05).

    “Donor 1's microbiota produced far more butyrate than propionate, and both levels appeared enhanced by the presence of botanicals (Figure 2; butyrate: ∼14 mM with and ∼7 mM without, p < 0.05; propionate: ∼7 mM with and ∼4.5 mM without, p < 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Rapid relative growth of bifidobacteria came at the expense of diverse members of Bacteroideaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Ruminococcaceae in all donors, and Akkermansiaceae specifically for donor 4 (p < 0.001).

    “This rapid relative growth of bifidobacteria came at the expense of diverse members of Bacteroideaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Ruminococcaceae in all donors, as well as Akkermansiaceae specifically for donor 4 (Figure 4b) (p < 0.001, ANOVA).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Donor 4's microbiota showed strong metabolic rewiring with botanicals; though slightly more propiogenic than butyrogenic without botanicals, when botanicals were added the production of butyrate dropped significantly (p < 0.05 for all timepoints except t = 2 h) and propionate production was delayed, though it reached higher substantially concentrations at the end of the fermentation compared with

    “Again, donor 4's microbiota showed strong metabolic rewiring with botanicals; though slightly more propiogenic than butyrogenic without botanicals, when botanicals were added the production of butyrate dropped significantly (p < 0.05 for all timepoints except t = 2 h) and propionate production was delayed, though it reached higher substantially concentrations at the end of the fermentation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Isobutyrate was detectable only in donor 1 cultures with botanicals, which was also true for isovalerate, with the exception of t = 2 h where isovalerate was also found in fermentations lacking botanicals.

    “Isobutyrate was also detectable only in donor 1 cultures with botanicals, which was also true for isovalerate (with the exception of t = 2 h, where this latter metabolite was also found in fermentations lacking botanicals).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Control fermentations to which no carbon source was added did not display a significant acidification, with pH values remaining between 6-7 for the entire duration of the experiment.

    “In contrast, control fermentations to which no carbon source was added did not display a significant acidification, with pH values remaining between 6-7 for the entire duration of the experiment (data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All in vitro fermentations containing OLISMART fibers proceeded rapidly, as measured by medium acidification, and reached terminal acidities (pH 3.5-4.0) within 12 h of inoculation for donors 1 and 2, whereas pH continued to modestly decline in cultures from donors 3 and 4 for the duration of the experiment.

    “All in vitro fermentations containing OLISMART fibers proceeded rapidly, as measured by medium acidification, and reached terminal acidities (pH 3.5-4.0)within 12 h of inoculation for donors 1 and 2, whereas pH continued to modestly decline in cultures from donors 3 and 4 for the duration of the experiment (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Acids were still being produced in donor 4 communities; the pH of these cultures dropped below 5 by the 8-h time point.

    “Interestingly, acids were still being produced in these communities (see below); the pH of these cultures dropped below 5 by the 8-h time point.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fermentations containing donor 2 microbiota produced modestly more butyrate than propionate, and the production rates and amounts of these metabolites were similar with and without botanicals (p > 0.05 for all timepoints except propionate at 12 h, likely due to limited number of replicates); isovalerate and isobutyrate were undetectable in these cultures.

    “By contrast, fermentations containing donor 2 microbiota produced modestly more butyrate than propionate, and the production rates and amounts of these metabolites were similar with and without botanicals (p > 0.05 for all timepoints except propionate at 12 h [likely due to limited number of replicates]); isovalerate and isobutyrate were undetectable in these cultures (data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effect of botanicals on fiber fermentation was donor specific, generally reflecting overall acid production trends; acetogenesis of donor 1 and donor 3 microbiota was significantly stimulated by botanicals at 12 h (p < 0.05) while donor 4's microbiota was not significantly affected.

    “The effect of botanicals on fiber fermentation was donor specific, generally in ways that reflected overall acid production trends; acetogenesis of donor 1 and donor 3 microbiota were significantly stimulated by botanicals at 12 h (p < 0.05) while donor 4's microbiota was not significantly affected.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effect of botanicals on fermentation rate was donor-specific: botanicals substantially increased the fermentation rate in donor 1 and donor 3 cultures, had little or no impact on donor 2 culture rates, and significantly slowed acid generation in donor 4 cultures.

    “Interestingly, the effect of botanicals on fermentation rate was donorspecific; botanicals substantially increased the fermentation rate in donor 1 and donor 3 cultures, had little or no impact on donor 2 culture rates, and significantly slowed acid generation in donor 4 cultures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In donor 2 and 4 microbiota, B. longum was already more abundant pre-fermentation but was not increased in relative abundance by fermentation.

    “In contrast, this species was already more abundant in donor 2 and 4 microbiota pre-fermentation but was not increased (in relative abundance) by fermentation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In donor 2 fermentations, B. longum was outcompeted by B. adolescentis when fermenting OLISMART fibers alone but was retained (and the entire bifidobacterial population increased) when botanicals were present.

    “Interestingly, in donor 2 fermentations the B. longum population was outcompeted by B. adolescentis when fermenting OLISMART fibers alone but was retained (and the entire bifidobacterial population increased) when botanicals were present.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across all 4 donors, independent of initial community size and composition, a strong bifidogenic response and concomitant elevated SCFA production levels were established in fermentations containing the fiber mixture, either in the presence or absence of the botanical blend.

    “Across all 4 donors employed, independent of initial community size and composition, a strong bifidogenic response and concomitant elevated SCFA production levels were established in fermentations containing the fiber mixture, either in the presence or absence of the botanical blend.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Fermentation of the fiber mixture by fecal microbiota resulted in increased levels of B. longum, B. adolescentis, or B. pseudocatenulatum, but not to the same extent in all donors.

    “To this end, fermentation of the fiber mixture by fecal microbiota resulted in increased levels of B. longum, B. adolescentis, or B. pseudocatenulatum, but not to the same extent in all donors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Donor 2 and 3's microbiota showed time-dependent increases in B. pseudocatenulatum, with donor 2's B. pseudocatenulatum showing significant increases from timepoint 0 only in botanical supplemented media, while donor 3 saw significant increase in both conditions post-fermentation.

    “Further, donor 2 and 3's microbiota showed time-dependent increases in B. pseudocatenalatum, with donor 2's B. pseudocatenalatum showing significant (p < 0.05, ANOVA) increases from timepoint 0 in only the botanical supplemented media while donor 3 saw significant increase in both conditions post-fermentation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    Successful utilization of fibers and prebiotics in designing fiber-supplemented food and beverage products to improve health via the microbiome at population scales requires much greater insight into mechanistic linkages among fine fiber structure and microbiota.

    “Successful utilization of fibers and prebiotics in designing fibersupplemented food and beverage products to improve health via the microbiome at population scales requires much greater insight into such mechanistic linkages among fine fiber structure and microbiota.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: There is a paucity of scientific literature assessing the effects of botanical extracts on the gut microbiome or broader human health.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: No microbiome studies have been performed elucidating the combined interaction effects of botanical extracts and prebiotic fiber within a final product formulation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The R session, code, and input files required to replicate each of the plots, as well as raw input, are available as supplementary information.

    “The R session, code, and input files required to replicate each of our plots, as well as raw input are available as supplementary information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Fermentation cultures were harvested in triplicate for each of the 3 media at timepoints 2, 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 h.

    “Fermentation cultures were harvested in triplicate for each of the 3 media at timepoints 2, 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 h.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The mechanisms by which fibers exert beneficial health-promoting properties are multi-factorial, but include increased production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), stimulation of beneficial microbial taxa (e.g. bifidobacteria), and reduction in the production of nitrogenous and otherwise pro-inflammatory metabolites, ammonia, amines, and some phenolic compounds.

    “The mechanisms by which fibers exert beneficial health-promoting properties are multi-factorial, but include increased production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), stimulation of beneficial microbial taxa (e.g.bifidobacteria), reduction in the production of nitrogenous and otherwise pro-inflammatory metabolites, ammonia, amines, and some phenolic compounds (Makki et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Makki et al., 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Increasing understanding of a botanical extract's influence on the microbiome and human health is important given their inclusion in numerous dietary supplements or functional food and beverage products in recent years.

    “Increasing our understanding of a botanical extract's influence on the microbiome and human health is important given their inclusion in numerous dietary supplements or functional food and beverage products in recent years (https://tinyurl.com/ krmet4vs).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites https://tinyurl.com/ krmet4vs

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: Botanical extracts are frequently included in multi-ingredient products including botanicals and prebiotic fibers by companies.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Reduction in the relative abundances of microorganisms does not imply that their absolute numbers are reduced, but rather that they are not growing sufficiently rapidly to keep up with the average growth rate of the community.

    “It should be noted that reduction in the relative abundances of microorganisms does not imply that their absolute numbers are reduced, but rather that they are not growing sufficiently rapidly to keep up with the average growth rate of the community.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    External standards were used to back-calculate sample concentrations of acetate, propionate, butyrate, isobutyrate, and isovalerate.

    “External standards were used to back-calculate sample concentrations of acetate (Thermo Fisher catalogue number A38S), propionate (A258), butyrate (AC108111000), isobutyrate (AC122520250), and isovalerate (AA A18642AU).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The magnitude of the bifidogenic effect and the species selected were individual and dependent in some cases upon botanicals.

    “Interestingly, the magnitude of the bifidogenic effect and the species selected were individual and dependent in some cases upon botanicals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Donors selected had no history of gastrointestinal or chronic metabolic diseases and had not had a major gastrointestinal surgery in the past 5 years or a major bowel resection ever.

    “Donors selected had no history of gastrointestinal or chronic metabolic diseases and had not had a major gastrointestinal surgery in the past 5 years or a major bowel resection ever.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These data suggest substantial rewiring of the metabolism of OLISMART fibers by the donor 4 microbiota, and more minor influences on the donor 1 and 3 communities.

    “These data suggest substantial rewiring of the metabolism of OLISMART fibers by the donor 4 microbiota, and more minor influences on the donor 1 and 3 communities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisenone given

    Leveraging fiber supplementation to bridge the fiber gap requires a more thorough mechanistic understanding of the relationship between microbiome compositional changes, metabolite production, and human physiology.

    “However, leveraging fiber supplementation to bridge the fiber gap requires a more thorough mechanistic understanding of the relationship between microbiome compositional changes, metabolite production, and human physiology.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Fiber fermentation in vivo occurs in the context of many other compounds that can impact fiber utilization by microbes and metabolic fate in the colon.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    OLISMART fibers are strongly selective for bifidobacteria in vitro, and this bifidogenic effect is observed even when initial endogenous populations of bifidobacteria are small.

    “These data suggest that OLISMART fibers are strongly selective for bifidobacteria in vitro and this bifidogenic effect is observed even when initial endogenous populations of bifidobacteria are small.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Dietary fiber is a heterogeneous category of plant carbohydrates, having diverse physical and chemical structures and associated physiochemical properties such as solubility and viscosity.

    “Thus,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Four donors were selected who satisfied criteria: age 18-39 years, normal or overweight BMI (18.5 < BMI < 30), consumed normal diet for the last two weeks, no antibiotics within the last 12 months, no fiber, prebiotic, or probiotic products within the last 3 months, and not heavy alcohol drinkers.

    “Four donors were selected that satisfied the following criteria: 1. between 18-39 years old, 2. a normal or overweight BMI (18.5 < BMI < 30), 3. consumed their normal diet for the last two weeks, 4. did not take any antibiotics within the last 12 months, 5. did not consume any fiber, prebiotic, or probiotic prod-ucts within the last 3 months, and 6. are not heavy alcohol drinkers”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Although fermentative responses to OLISMART fibers by gut microbiota were very similar across donor microbiota, the interactions of fibers with botanicals were determined by donor context.

    “Thus, although fermentative responses to OLISMART fibers by gut microbiota were very similar across donor microbiota, the interactions of fibers with botanicals were determined by donor context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Fecal donors were recruited for this study under oversight from the Purdue University Institutional Review Board under protocol IRB-2020-1650.

    “Fecal donors were recruited for this study under oversight from the Purdue University Institutional Review Board under protocol IRB-2020-1650.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data
    § International Society for Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods Botanicals impact the bifidogenic effect and metabolic outputs of in vitro fiber fermentation by gut-derived microbiota in individual-specific ways

    Botanicals impact the bifidogenic effect and metabolic outputs of in vitro fiber fermentation by gut-derived microbiota in individual-specific ways.

    “Botanicals impact the bifidogenic effect and metabolic outputs of in vitro fiber fermentation by gut-derived microbiota”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Fiber fermentation in vivo occurs in the context of many other compounds that can impact fiber utilization by microbes and metabolic fate in the colon.
    • Rests on an assumption: There is a paucity of scientific literature assessing the effects of botanical extracts on the gut microbiome or broader human health.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: No microbiome studies have been performed elucidating the combined interaction effects of botanical extracts and prebiotic fiber within a final product formulation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Botanical extracts are frequently included in multi-ingredient products including botanicals and prebiotic fibers by companies.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Prebiotic fibers, such as those employed in this study, are likely to broadly elicit health benefits across individuals, but these benefits may be personalized by individuals' unique microbiome communities.

    “Taken together, this suggests that while prebiotic fibers, such as those employed in this study, are likely to broadly elicit health benefits across individuals, these benefits may be personalized by individuals' unique microbiome communities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Fermentation of dietary components and their gut microbiome and metabolome effects are often investigated in isolation, whereas product formulations often contain blends of several functional ingredients.

    “Fermentation of dietary components and their gut microbiome and metabolome effects are often investigated in isolation, whereas product formulations often contain blends of several functional ingredients.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Makki et al., 2018 source
    • cites Qin et al., 2023 source
    • cites Cefalu et al., 2008 source
40 of 40

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Fiber fermentation in vivo occurs in the context of many other compounds that can impact fiber utilization by microbes and metabolic fate in the colon.

    “Importantly, fiber fermentation in vivo does not occur in a vacuum; fibers are fermented in the context of many other compounds that might impact their utilization by microbes and metabolic fate in the colon.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a paucity of scientific literature assessing the effects of botanical extracts on the gut microbiome or broader human health.

    “Although mechanistic and human health outcomes are widely studied for prebiotic fibers, there is a paucity of scientific literature assessing the effects of botanical extracts on the gut microbiome or broader human health.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    No microbiome studies have been performed elucidating the combined interaction effects of botanical extracts and prebiotic fiber within a final product formulation.

    “Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no microbiome studies have been performed elucidating the combined interaction effects of botanical extracts and prebiotic fiber within a final product formulation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Botanical extracts are frequently included in multi-ingredient products including botanicals and prebiotic fibers by companies.

    “Furthermore, botanical extracts being included in dietary supplements or functional food and beverage products is not unique; frequently, companies are creating multi-ingredient products including botanicals and prebiotic fibers.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Combinations of inulin and resistant dextrin have not been previously investigated for microbiome or digestive health benefits.

    “Combinations of inulin and resistant dextrin, which was used in the present study, have not been previously investigated for microbiome or digestive health benefits.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Studies combining inulin, resistant dextrin, and botanicals or, more broadly, any botanical and prebiotic fiber blends do not exist in the peer-reviewed scientific research.

    “Studies combining inulin, resistant dextrin, and botanicals or, more broadly, any botanical and prebiotic fiber blends do not exist to our knowledge in the peer-reviewed scientific research.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No research is published on the inter-related effects of both functional ingredient categories.

    “but, to our knowledge, no research is published on the inter-related effects of both functional ingredient categories.”
7 of 7

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Donor 2 branched-chain fatty acids are both undetectable and quantified

    Minor

    The paper says isovalerate and isobutyrate were undetectable in donor 2 cultures, but later gives maximum concentrations for both metabolites in donor 2.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Deemer, D. G., Voreades, N., Bron, P. A., & Lindemann, S. R.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Lindemann, Stephen R
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Food Bioactives
Publisher
Tsinghua University Press
Published
2025-06
Pages
57-67
ISSN
  • 2637-8752 (ISSN-L)
  • 2637-8779
DOI
10.26599/jfb.2025.95030415
OpenAlex
W4411832927
Cited by
3
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Food Bioactives (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Purdue University
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
botanicals, prebiotic fiber, bifidogenic effect, gut microbiota, Bifidobacterium, inulin, resistant dextrin, short-chain fatty acids, functional beverages

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-03.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-03.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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