Three probiotic strains exert different effects on plasma bile acid profiles in healthy obese adults: randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbial metabolism in the gut may alter human bile acid metabolism in a way that beneficially affects lipid homeostasis and therefore cardiovascular disease risk. Deconjugation of bile acids by microbes is thought to be key to this mechanism but has yet to be characterised in blood and stool while observing lipid markers. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of 3 different probiotic strains on plasma and stool bile acids in the context of lipid and glucose metabolism. In this 18-week, randomised, double-blind crossover study, healthy adults (53±8 years) with a high waist circumference underwent a 1-week pre-baseline period and were then randomised to receive 1 capsule/day of Bacillus subtilis R0179 (2.5×10 9 cfu/capsule; n=39), Lactobacillus plantarum HA-119 (5×10 9 cfu/capsule; n=38), Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis B94 (5×10 9 cfu/capsule; n=37) or placebo for 6 weeks. Following a 3-week washout and second pre-baseline week, participants were crossed to the other intervention for 6 weeks followed by a 1-week post-intervention period. Blood and stool samples were collected at the beginning and end of each intervention to measure bile acids, serum lipid profiles, and glucose and insulin levels. Data from the placebo intervention were combined for all participants for analyses. In obese participants, the difference (final-baseline) in the sum of deconjugated plasma bile acids was greater with consumption of B. subtilis (691±378 nmol/l, P =0.01) and B. lactis (380±165 nmol/l, P =0.04) than with placebo (98±176 nmol/l, n=57). No significant differences were observed for any probiotics for stool bile acids, serum lipids, blood glucose or insulin. These data suggest that B. subtilis and B. lactis had no effect on glucose metabolism or serum cholesterol but increased deconjugated plasma bile acids in obese individuals. Additional studies should be conducted to confirm these findings and explore potential mechanisms. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01879098.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".