![]() “At this time, it appears that aspartame has the least impact on the small intestinal microbiome. “We need to confirm our findings in a larger cohort before we make any recommendations,” Mathur told Healio. In comparison, the microbial functional potential of the aspartame group was akin to non-consumers, with just one function - cylindrospermopsin biosynthesis - enriched in the aspartame group. non-consumers.įurther, Mathur and colleagues reported that duodenal microbial metabolic potential functions in artificial sweetener consumers were unique, with significant variations in 386 pathways compared with non-consumers. The researchers also noted that relative abundance of known duodenal disrupters, Escherichia and Klebsiella, were surprisingly lower in both the mixed artificial sweetener and aspartame groups vs. “These effects are more pronounced for the non-aspartame sweeteners.” “In this first-ever study of the effects of artificial sweeteners on the small intestinal microbiome, we found that artificial sweeteners are associated with marked effects on microbial profiles and predicted microbial metabolic pathways,” Mathur said. Mathur and colleagues noted that only 86 bacterial features differed significantly between the aspartame users and non-consumers. non-consumers, whereas the relative abundance of Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Fusobacteria were reportedly lower.Īdditionally, the relative abundance of 145 bacterial features diverged greatly between artificial sweetener consumers and non-consumers, including a 2.50-fold higher abundance of Streptococcus among artificial sweetener users. The researchers also reported that the relative abundance of Firmicutes, the predominant duodenal phylum, was 2.38-fold higher among artificial sweetener consumers vs. “The group who consumed aspartame alone did not have a significant change in small bowel microbial diversity, whereas the non-aspartame sweetener group showed a decrease in diversity,” Mathur said. ![]() those who did not consume artificial sweeteners, with significantly lower microbial diversity reported among mixed artificial sweetener consumers ( P =. Additionally, they performed Operational Taxonomic Unit clustering, taxonomic analysis and MetaCyc function predictions using CLC Microbial Genomics Modules.Īccording to study results, taxonomic profile and functional potential of the duodenal microbiome varied significantly between patients who consumed mixed artificial sweeteners vs. ![]() Researchers isolated microbial DNAs and sequenced V3/V4 libraries from duodenal aspirates obtained via protected double lumen catheters. They enrolled patients who were undergoing upper endoscopy without colon prep and divided them into groups of non-consumers of artificial sweetener (n = 55), aspartame-only consumers (n = 9) and mixed artificial sweetener consumers (n = 35). ![]() To determine whether a possible link exists between artificial sweeteners, the small intestinal microbiome and these gastrointestinal symptoms, Mathur and colleagues assessed duodenal microbiome profiles of patients who consumed artificial sweeteners vs. These symptoms are seen more with the use of sugar alcohols and sugar-derived sweeteners like sucralose than with amino acid-derived sweeteners like aspartame.” “Many of these patients report GI issues such as bloating and altered bowel habits. “As physicians, we see a number of patients who consume artificial sweeteners for a variety of reasons,” Ruchi Mathur, MD, director of clinical research and clinical operations for medical associated science and technology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, told Healio. If you continue to have this issue please contact to HealioĬHICAGO - Greater consumption of artificial sweeteners, specifically those that do not contain aspartame, resulted in “marked effects” on the duodenal microbiome profile, according to data presented at Digestive Disease Week.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |