ArticleJournal of food science2024
Gastrointestinal fate of proteins from commercial plant-based meat analogs: Silent passage through the stomach, oxidative stress in intestine, and gut dysbiosis in Wistar rats.
Article in Journal of food science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering the Physiological Responses to the Intake of Plant-Based Meat Analogues: On the Track of Microbiota and Biomarkers in Serum and Urine.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025Article
- The impact of a superfood chocolate beverage on indices of peripheral vascular function.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- Gastrointestinal fate of proteins from commercial plant-based meat analogs: Silent passage through the stomach, oxidative stress in intestine, and gut dysbiosis in Wistar rats.Journal of food science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Plant-based meat analogs (PBMAs) are common ultra-processed foods (UPFs) included in the vegan/vegetarian diets as presumed healthy alternatives to meat and meat products. However, such health claims need to be supported by scientific evidence. To gain further insight into this topic, two commercial UPFs typically sold as meat analogs, namely, seitan (S) and tofu (T), were included in a cereal-based chow and provided to Wistar rats for 10 weeks. A group of animals had, simultaneously, an isocaloric and isoprotein experimental diet formulated with cooked beef (B). In all cases, experimental chows (∼4 kcal/g feed) had their basal protein concentration increased from 14% to 30% using proteins from S, T, or B. Upon slaughter, in vivo protein digestibility was assessed, and the entire gastrointestinal tract (digests and tissues) was analyzed for markers of oxidative stress and untargeted metabolomics. Metagenomics was also applied to assess the variation of microbiota composition as affected by dietary protein. Diets based on PBMAs showed lower protein digestibility than those containing meat and promoted an intense luminal glycoxidative stress and an inflammatory intestinal response. The fermentation of undigested oxidized proteins from T in the colon of Wistar rats likely led to formation of mutagenic metabolites such as p-cresol. The presence of these compounds in the animal models raises concerns about the potential effects of full replacement of meat by certain PBMAs in the diet. Therefore, future research might target on translational human studies to shed light on these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.