| Literature DB >> 35028307 |
Minchun Zhang1, Jie Chen1, Minglan Yang1, Cheng Qian1, Yu Liu1, Yicheng Qi1, Rilu Feng1, Mei Yang1, Wei Liu1, Jing Ma1.
Abstract
Artificial sweeteners (AS) have been widely used as sugar substitutes to reduce calorie intake. However, it was reported that high doses of AS induced glucose intolerance via modulating gut microbiota. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of lower doses of sucralose on fecal microbiota in obesity. Eight weeks after high-fat diet (HFD), the male Sprague Dawley rats were randomly divided into four groups (6 in each group) and administrated by a daily gavage of 2 ml normal saline (CON), 0.54 mM sucralose (N054), 0.78 mM sucralose (N078), and 324 mM sucrose (S324), respectively. After 4 weeks, fecal samples were obtained and analyzed by 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing. The richness and diversity of fecal microbiota were not changed by sucralose or sucrose. Both 0.54 mM (0.43 mg) and 0.78 mM (0.62 mg) sucralose tended to reduce the beneficial bacteria, Lactobacillaceae and Akkermansiaceae. The relative abundance of family Acidaminoccaceae and its genus Phascolarctobacteriam were increased after 0.54 mM sucralose. In functional prediction, 0.54 mM sucralose increased profiles of carbohydrate metabolism, whereas 0.78 mM sucralose enhanced those of amino acid metabolism. The lower doses of sucralose might alter the compositions of fecal microbiota. The effects of sucralose in different dosages should be considered in the future study.Entities:
Keywords: 16S ribosomal RNA gene analysis; artificial sweeteners; fecal microbiota; obesity; sucralose
Year: 2021 PMID: 35028307 PMCID: PMC8751733 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2021.787055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Beta diversity analysis in four groups with unsupervised and classification methods. (A) Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA). Bray–Curtis distances and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) were performed. p = 0.001 and p adjust = 0.001. (B) Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). Each sample was represented by a dot (n = 6). CON, control group; N054, 0.54 mM sucralose; N078, 0.78 mM sucralose; S324, 324 mM sucrose.
Figure 2Main bacterial communities of different taxonomies. (A) Community bar plot of the domain phyla. (B) Relative abundant of the domain phyla of four groups. (C) Circos plot showing the relationship between microbial families and samples. (D) Relative abundance of core bacterial families. Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test with Tukey–Kramer post-hoc analysis was performed (n = 6). Mean ± standard error. *p < 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 3LDA effect size (LEfSe) analysis based on genus level among four groups. (A) LEfSe bar plot demonstrating the significant bacterial differences. (B) Cladogram indicating the phylogenetic distribution of fecal microbiota with phyla in the outermost and genera in the innermost ring. Multiple comparison strategy was all-against-all (n = 6). Only LDA score >2.0 is shown.
Figure 4LEfSe analysis on predictive functions of KEGG level 3 identified via PICRUSt. A Log LDA >2.0 was considered as significant difference. KEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; PICRUSt, Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States.