Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33472701›Full record

ReviewGenome medicine2021

The complexities of the diet-microbiome relationship: advances and perspectives.

Emily R Leeming, Panayiotis Louca, Rachel Gibson, Cristina Menni, Tim D Spector, Caroline I Le Roy

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07742319 (The Effect of Soil Biodiversity on Human Gut Microbiome), which is not on this map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07742319 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Soil Biodiversity on Human Gut Microbiome: a Process Pilot Study (The HUMANITAS Study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorLeiden University Medical CenterRan2026 to 2026Enrolled10ConditionsPilot StudyArmsLow diversity vegetable smoothie, High diversity vegetable smoothie
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Emily R Leeming *The Department of Twin Research, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, 3-4th Floor South Wing Block D, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Panayiotis Louca *The Department of Twin Research, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, 3-4th Floor South Wing Block D, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Rachel GibsonDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, King's College London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, UK.
Cristina MenniThe Department of Twin Research, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, 3-4th Floor South Wing Block D, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Tim D SpectorThe Department of Twin Research, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, 3-4th Floor South Wing Block D, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK. tim.spector@kcl.ac.uk.
Caroline I Le RoyThe Department of Twin Research, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, 3-4th Floor South Wing Block D, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK. caroline.le_roy@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0341-751X

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N01183X/1Medical Research Council MR/N030125/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalised dietary modulation of the gut microbiota may be key to disease management. Current investigations provide a broad understanding of the impact of diet on the composition and activity of the gut microbiota, yet detailed knowledge in applying diet as an actionable tool remains limited. Further to the relative novelty of the field, approaches are yet to be standardised and extremely heterogeneous research outcomes have ensued. This may be related to confounders associated with complexities in capturing an accurate representation of both diet and the gut microbiota. This review discusses the intricacies and current methodologies of diet-microbial relations, the implications and limitations of these investigative approaches, and future considerations that may assist in accelerating applications. New investigations should consider improved collection of dietary data, further characterisation of mechanistic interactions, and an increased focus on -omic technologies such as metabolomics to describe the bacterial and metabolic activity of food degradation, together with its crosstalk with the host. Furthermore, clinical evidence with health outcomes is required before therapeutic dietary strategies for microbial amelioration can be made. The potential to reach detailed understanding of diet-microbiota relations may depend on re-evaluation, progression, and unification of research methodologies, which consider the complexities of these interactions.

Indexed as

DietMicrobiotaAnimalsBiodiversityFoodHumansModels, BiologicalDietGut microbiomePersonalised nutritionResearch methods

Identifiers

PMID33472701
PMCPMC7819159

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.