Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34172012›Full record

Trial reportBMC microbiology2021

A synbiotic intervention modulates meta-omics signatures of gut redox potential and acidity in elective caesarean born infants.

Christophe Lay, Collins Wenhan Chu, Rikky Wenang Purbojati, Enzo Acerbi, Daniela I Drautz-Moses, Paola Florez de Sessions, Song Jie, Eliza Ho, Yee Jiun Kok, Xuezhi Bi and 16 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Microbiome: A Key Regulator of Body-Brain Interactions.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

26 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.

Christophe LayDanone Nutricia Research, Singapore, Singapore.
Collins Wenhan ChuGenome Institute of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Rikky Wenang PurbojatiSingapore Centre For Environmental Life Sciences Engineering (SCELSE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Enzo AcerbiDanone Nutricia Research, Singapore, Singapore.
Daniela I Drautz-MosesSingapore Centre For Environmental Life Sciences Engineering (SCELSE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Paola Florez de SessionsGenome Institute of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Song JieGenome Institute of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Eliza HoGenome Institute of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yee Jiun KokBioprocessing Technology Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Xuezhi BiBioprocessing Technology Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Shuwen ChenBioprocessing Technology Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Shi Ya MakBioprocessing Technology Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Mei Chien ChuaKK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Anne E N GohKK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Wen Chin ChiangKK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Rajeshwar RaoKK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Surasith ChaithongwongwatthanaKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nipon KhemapechKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Voranush ChongsrisawatKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rocio MartinDanone Nutricia Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
JULIUS Study Group
Guus RoeselersDanone Nutricia Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ying Swan HoBioprocessing Technology Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Martin L HibberdGenome Institute of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Stephan C SchusterSingapore Centre For Environmental Life Sciences Engineering (SCELSE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Jan KnolDanone Nutricia Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands. jan.knol@danone.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2103-5961
Nanyang Technological University · SGAgency for Science, Technology and Research · SGChulalongkorn University · THDanone (France) · FRGenome Institute of Singapore · SGKK Women's and Children's Hospital · SGBioprocessing Technology Institute · SGDanone (Netherlands) · NLNutricia Research (Netherlands) · NLWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe compromised gut microbiome that results from C-section birth has been hypothesized as a risk factor for the development of non-communicable diseases (NCD). In a double-blind randomized controlled study, 153 infants born by elective C-section received an infant formula supplemented with either synbiotic, prebiotics, or unsupplemented from birth until 4 months old. Vaginally born infants were included as a reference group. Stool samples were collected from day 3 till week 22. Multi-omics were deployed to investigate the impact of mode of delivery and nutrition on the development of the infant gut microbiome, and uncover putative biological mechanisms underlying the role of a compromised microbiome as a risk factor for NCD.

resultsAs early as day 3, infants born vaginally presented a hypoxic and acidic gut environment characterized by an enrichment of strict anaerobes (Bifidobacteriaceae). Infants born by C-section presented the hallmark of a compromised microbiome driven by an enrichment of Enterobacteriaceae. This was associated with meta-omics signatures characteristic of a microbiome adapted to a more oxygen-rich gut environment, enriched with genes associated with reactive oxygen species metabolism and lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis, and depleted in genes involved in the metabolism of milk carbohydrates. The synbiotic formula modulated expression of microbial genes involved in (oligo)saccharide metabolism, which emulates the eco-physiological gut environment observed in vaginally born infants. The resulting hypoxic and acidic milieu prevented the establishment of a compromised microbiome.

conclusionsThis study deciphers the putative functional hallmarks of a compromised microbiome acquired during C-section birth, and the impact of nutrition that may counteract disturbed microbiome development.

trial registrationThe study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (Number: 2838 ) on 4th April 2011.

Indexed as

BacteriaBiodiversityCesarean SectionDouble-Blind MethodFecesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMetagenomeC-sectionInfantMicrobiomeSynbiotics

Identifiers

PMID34172012
PMCPMC8229302
OpenAlexW3173616839

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.