Cited by 34Gut microbiota and healthFood composition and propertiesNutritional Studies and Diet

A systematic review of the effect of dietary pulses on microbial populations inhabiting the human gut

Open access
Marinangeli, C.P.F., Harding, S.V., Zafron, M., Rideout, T.C.·2020·Beneficial Microbes

Abstract

Pulses are dry leguminous crops consisting of beans, lentils, chickpeas, and peas. They are a broad category of food that are often aggregated when their contribution to healthy dietary patterns are disseminated. However, the different genera and varieties of pulses vary in composition and are consumed in different amounts, largely dictated by geographic region and ethnicity. Given the number of pulse-derived components, including fibre, that have the capacity to alter the composition of the gut microbiome, the objective of this study was to systematically review dietary pulses and pulse-derived ingredients as a broader food group, to determine their effect on gut microbiota in humans. Major scientific databases were used to conduct the search, which spanned from 1990 until February 2019. The search strategy identified 2,444 articles and five studies were included in this analysis. Two studies used whole pulses (chickpeas and pinto beans), one study used cooked navy bean powder, and the two remaining studies used pulse-derived fibre (lupin or yellow pea hulls). Although inconsistent, some studies demonstrated that whole pulses (pinto beans and chickpeas), cooked navy bean powder, and pulse-derived fibre (lupin kernel fibre), did impose changes to the microbiota that inhabit the human large intestine. However, there was considerable variability concerning the methodologies and endpoints used to decipher the observed effects on the abundance, diversity, and/or richness of specific microbiota or the microbiome. More extensive human studies that directly link the effects of specific types of pulses on the gastrointestinal microbial environment to health outcomes in the host are required.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3920/bm2020.0028

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marinangeli, C. P. F., Harding, S. V., Zafron, M., & Rideout, T. C.
Affiliations
  • Pulse Canada (CA)
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Venue
Beneficial Microbes
Published
2020-09-01
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
457-468
ISSN
  • 1876-2883 (ISSN-L)
  • 1876-2891
OpenAlex
W3081694873
Cited by
34
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Beneficial Microbes (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
gut microbiota, Fabaceae, chickpea, pinto bean, dietary fiber, microbiome diversity
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Diet, Dietary Fiber, Feces, Female, Humans, Fabaceae, Male, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Vegetables, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Crops, Agricultural

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